Operation Middleton Report

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.022677

I note you seek access to the following information:

ORIGINAL REQUEST
I would like a copy of the Operation Middleton Report

NEW REQUEST
From your reply am I to understand that:

 Operation Middleton ran for 4 ½ years from December 1998 until July 2003
 During that time no summary report of progress was written or submitted
 At the conclusion of Operation Middleton no overall summary was written or submitted

Is it normal for a Metropolitan Police operation running for so long at the cost of £1,000,000’s and consuming 1,000’s of officers hours to be managed this way?

I know that Lambeth produced such progress and final reports for Operation CHILE and included some details for Operation Middleton too.

I know also that the final report included the following text –

“In January 2003 a comprehensive risk assessment was carried out by Senior Officers in the Metropolitan Police, The Chief Executive of Lambeth Council, Interim Director of Social Services, Consultant head of the CHILE team and the Director of Policy and Performance. This assessment looked at the original terms of reference of the operation and assessed the risk outstanding of the terms and objectives of the Operation not having been met .”

Source - Lambeth Operation Middleton 4th and Final Report Document Ref 225/03-04 Section 2-2

This would seem to indicate that at least one summary report must have been produced within the Metropolitan Police.

Press reporting in 1999 also indicated that the intention was to release a final report once the investigation had completed

“The report into the allegations of abuse in the homes is expected to be made public once it has been completed..”

Source – The Independent 07 February 1999 - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/hunt-for-abused-children-1069249.html

I would appreciate it if you could confirm my understanding of your original reply.

Decision

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 40 - Personal Information

Reason for decision

As I detailed in your previous FOIA 01/FOI/21/022223 there was no definitive all-encompassing report that was generated from the Operation Middleton investigation. The Operation began in December 1998 and was closed by the MPS in July 2003.

During this period no overall summary was written or submitted, however a closing report was written at its conclusion. I will supply this closing report. I will not disclose the names of the Officers who worked on this report, nor will I disclose the names of any individuals from agencies outside of the MPS who assisted in the Operation, nor any suspects. This data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 40 - Personal data.

Section 40(2)(3) - Personal data - When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. Section 40(3A)(a) states that public authorities will not disclose information which constitutes personal data and if the disclosure would contravene any of the Data Protection principles.

To disclose all the requested data could publicly reveal information about an individual or individuals which would contravene Data Protection principles. The Data Protection Act 2018 defines personal data as any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual. There are six data protection principles set out in section 34 of the DPA 2018 and under Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The first principle requires personal data to be processed in a ‘lawful and fair’ manner. The basis for determining what constitutes lawful and fair is outlined under section 35 of the DPA. Under section 35(2) it states:

• the data subject has given consent to the processing for that purpose, or
• the processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out for that purpose by a competent authority.

It is important to note that we do not have the consent of any of the officers who worked on the closing report, nor from individuals from external agencies who worked with the MPS to release their personal data and, the release of the data will not be used for a law enforcement process. Therefore, neither of the two points above can be satisfied.

Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

• There is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of that personal data.
• The disclosure of the personal data is necessary to meet that legitimate interest.
• The disclosure would not cause unwarranted harm to the data subject.

You have asked the MPS to confirm if a summary report of progress was written or submitted and whether or not at the conclusion of Operation Middleton an overall summary was written or submitted. I have confirmed that no summary report of progress was written and no overall summary was written or submitted at the Operations conclusion. However, a closing report was written at its conclusion, which I am disclosing. Therefore I will consider the legitimate interest of the disclosure of the personal data contained in the report.

• Disclosing the closing report would provide a factual answer to this request. The legitimate interest in transparency would be further satisfied through the release of this information.

• It is worth noting that information that is made available under the Act is published on the MPS website, making it readily available to the public at large, and not just the individual making the request. I have disclosed the closing report.

Disclosing the name of the officers and the names of individuals from agencies outside of the MPS could pose a legitimate risk to these individuals. It would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS and external agencies that have worked closely with the MPS with information that would assist them to do so. In this regard, a person with this intent would be likely to use this information to make inappropriate contact with senior members of MPS staff or staff from external agencies and send them vast amounts of unsolicited correspondence. This would impede upon the resources of these senior members of staff and cause disruption to the work of the MPS and staff from external agencies. Members of staff have a legitimate right to privacy and would not expect the MPS to publicly release and publish their personal data under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 if this would impede their roles.

Disclosure

Please find below a copy of the closing report.