Correspondence for Clapham Common protest

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.023431

I note you seek access to the following information:

“1) Please provide a copy of emails 65 and 80 referenced in line 35 of the ICO decision notice, marked up for redaction as a sample for disclosure as part of the appeal process. Based on the disclosure in 01/FOI/21/021112 these are likely to be the following emails:

65. RE DMC key messages and press statement on vigil - thoughts requested (7)
80. RE Sarah Everard vigil (18)

2) Please also provide the following email chains as set out in FOI 01/FOI/21/021112

18. RE Comms today and tomorrow (3)
35. 13 March VIGILS IMPORTANT UPDATE & DIRECTION TO SILVER (FOR BRIEFING UDPATE)
43. FW Crime debrief Clapham Common
45. FW Key messages about the vigil for Sarah Everard
59. RE City Hall HMG comms plans

I only require the names of Met Police senior leadership team or the Home Secretary/ her office if these are recipient email addresses. All other names can be redacted (though please leave the organisation section of email addresses).”

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 17(1) - Refusal Notice
Section 24(1) - National Security
Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Data
Section 42(1) - Legal Advice

Reason for decision

When a request for information is made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), a public authority must inform you, when permitted, whether the information requested is held. It must then communicate that information to you. If a public authority decides that it cannot comply with all or part of a request, it must cite the appropriate section or exemption of the Act and provide you with an explanation.

Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information - provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b) and 3B of the Act.

There are six principles that are set out in Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) that dictate when the processing of personal data is lawful. The first principle requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

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

The requested email chains contain the names of press officers, staff officers to senior managers and other members of staff employed by the MPS and other organisations. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

Names of Press Officers, Staff Officers to Senior Managers and Other Staff Members -
a. The press officers, staff officers and other staff members named in the requested correspondence, do not hold roles where they would reasonably expect their names to be published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Additionally, the functions that they performed within these emails were not that of a decision maker. I have not therefore identified a legitimate interest that would be satisfied in disclosing their personal data in response to this request for information.

Email addresses, telephone numbers and locations of staff members - #
a. The public release of the emails addresses of MPS employees and other persons that have corresponded with the MPS in connection with the vigil for Sarah Everard, would not satisfy any identifiable legitimate interest. The release of the addresses where Met employees and other public servants are located would also, not serve any identified legitimate interest.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.

Section 24(1) - National Security - Public Authorities are able to withhold information that is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. I have claimed this exemption in that some of the information requested is required for this purpose.

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

I have claimed this exemption in that the release and publication of the contact details of named senior MPS employees and other members of staff, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, with information that would assist them in this endeavour.

Section 42 - Legal Professional Privilege - Public Authorities are able to withhold information to which a claim of legal professional privilege applies.

Legal professional privilege is a common law principle that enforces the fact that a communication of a legal nature between a client and professional legal advisor is confidential. Legal professional privilege is intended to ensure that the communication between client and legal advisor remains open, candid and informed. When a public authority seeks to claim legal professional privilege, the dominant purpose of that communication must be to seek and/or provide legal advice. Where such a claim applies, that information cannot be disclosed without the consent of the client.

I have claimed this exemption as the requested emails contain legal advice.

Disruption to the Work of Senior MPS Employees -The release and publication of the telephone numbers, email addresses and other contact details of senior members of staff, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of 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 staff and/or send them vast amounts of unsolicited correspondence. This would tie up the resources of these senior members of staff and cause disruption to the work of the MPS.

Flow of Legal Advice - The MPS is reliant upon the provision of impartial legal advice to inform and guide its decision-making. The public release of the requested legal advice would be likely to impede the free and frank channels of communication that exist between the MPS and professional legal advisors. This is because, over time, those seeking legal advice on behalf of the MPS and/or providing advice to employees of the MPS, would be less likely to be candid in future communications owing to the risk of future release. This would affect the quality of advice provided by legal advisors to the MPS and the ability of the MPS to obtain open, informed and unbiased legal advice in future.

Safeguarding National Security - The requested document contains information that is relevant to safeguarding national security. The MPS considers that any information that is required to safeguard national security to be operationally sensitive and likely to be unsuitable for public disclosure. The reason that the MPS does not disclose information that is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security, is to ensure that the flow of information in this area of policing remains uninhibited. By disclosing information that is held for the purpose, the MPS would disrupt the process of obtaining and exchanging this type of information. Furthermore, the release of information that is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security would, over time, present a picture of the Met's work in this area, undermining its ability to operate effectively. There are clear links between confidentiality and success in this area of police work. The overriding public interest remains in maintaining the ability of all parties involved in maintaining national security, to continue to work in an uninhibited way.

When considering whether the release of information is in the public interest, I have to consider whether the public interest is in favour of releasing information into the public domain or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding the requested information. Having considered your request, I accept that there is a public interest in transparency when any request is made for police information. The public interest favouring release must be balanced against any associated risk and/or prejudice that would be caused by disclosure. In this regard, I have firstly considered whether it is appropriate to disclose information that is required to safeguard national security. Having considered this, I have found that that the public release of this information would, over time, present a picture of the Met's work in this area, undermining its ability to effectively maintain national security. There is generally no greater public interest factor favouring withholding information than safeguarding national security and for this reason, I have found that the public interest supports withholding the requested information.

Secondly, I have considered whether the public interest favours the public release and publication of the telephone numbers, email addresses and other contact details of senior members of staff. Having considered the public release of this information, I have found that this would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of MPS, with information that would assist them in this endeavour. Given this and the fact that the removal of this information does not detract from the quality of the records being disclosed, I have found that the release of this information is not in the public interest.

Thirdly and lastly, I have considered whether it is appropriate to release the legal advice provided in connection with the media statements made in respect of the vigil for Sarah Everard. Having considered this, I accept that its release would help the general public to better understand how the statements made were developed. However, having considered the wider impact of the release of legal advice, I have found that the content of the advice is largely immaterial, as its non-disclosure is about maintaining a safe and trusted forum for the provision of free and frank advice between the MPS and recognised professional legal advisors. Having considered your request, I have found that any action that would adversely affect the ability of police to obtain open and candid advice is not in the public interest. I have accordingly refused to release the information described above in response to your request for information.

Disclosure

Please refer to the attached documents