Criteria used in deciding coverage for write ups of criminal court hearings

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.023384

I note you seek access to the following information:

New request -
I understand the MET Police will sometimes publish write ups of criminal court hearings. By way of example this press release entitled “Two men jailed for food tin drug importation scam”, https://news.met.police.uk/news/two-men-jailed-for-food-tin-drug-importation-scam-440694

Please provide me:

1) The criteria that’s used in deciding which cases should receive coverage by this service?

2) The criteria that’s used in deciding which cases should not receive coverage by this service?

3) Please provide the staffing structure of the press team.

4) Please advise if any payment is made to individuals who write/supply the press release?

5) Please advise if the MET Police receives any payment from professional users of the Press Releases (eg a newspaper) for use of the information contained within?

6) Please provide any guidance to the press release team in the event they are seen to be competing with local freelance news reporters.

7) Please provide any media law training that is offered to writers of the press releases.
8) Specifically, with regards to the story mentioned above, please provide copies of internal correspondence in relation to the publication of this story. Eg the email bringing it to the attention of the press team. Any comments on whether this is a ‘good story’ or not.

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 23(1) - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters
Section 40(2)(3) - Personal data

Reason for decision

Some data within the attached email trail is exempt. These emails serve as the response to question 8.

Section 23(1) - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters - provides an exemption for information that was provided by, or relates to, a security body. The full list of security bodies are listed in subsection 3.

I have reviewed the attached email correspondence in relation to the publication of this story. It is evident that some of the email correspondence must be withheld under section 23(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Some of the data contained in the email relates to one the bodies specified in section 23(3) of the Act.

Section 40(2)(3) - Personal data - Section 40 is both an absolute and class based exemption which means there is no requirement on the MPS to consider whether there is a public interest in disclosure. 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 the release of the data will not be used for a law enforcement process.

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.

Having considered your request, I have found the attached email correspondence contains a range of personal data, in relation to police officers and staff as well as suspects. By means of a legitimate interest test I have considered the release of the personal data, and I have found that:

Criminal Offence Data

- The requested correspondence in the attached email contains personal criminal offence data. The Information Commissioner (the ombudsman for the Act) guidance on the release of personal criminal offence data under the Act states:

“Due to its sensitivity, the conditions for processing criminal offence data are very restrictive and generally concern specific, stated purposes. Consequently, only two are relevant to allow you to lawfully disclose under FOIA or the EIR. They are similar to those identified above for special category data. These are:

• consent from the data subject; or
• the processing relates to personal data which has clearly been made public by the individual concerned.

If a relevant condition cannot be met, you must not disclose the information as disclosure would be unlawful and therefore in contravention of principle (a).”

- The conditions required to release personal criminal offence data are not present in this case. The release of the requested personal data does not accordingly satisfy a legitimate interest and cannot be disclosed under the Act.

Personal data relating to Staff

- Disclosing the requested information would provide greater detail into the publication of the press release. The public may have a general interest in how Police Officers and staff conduct their business.
- The legitimate interest in transparency would be further satisfied through the release of this information.

- In relation to this request, the police officers who were part of the email correspondence hold the rank of Detective Chief Inspector and below. They would not therefore, reasonably expect their names to be published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. In this regard, the public release of the withheld personal data would be unexpected, unfair and distressing to the data subject(s) and could lead to unwanted and unsolicited intrusion from the media and/or others interested in their role in this case. In relation to staff from the Directorate of Media and Communication (DMC), the release of their personal data would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of DMC with information that would assist them to do so. To this end, the disclosure of this personal data would be a disproportionate interference with the rights to privacy of the data subject(s) and likely to cause unwarranted harm to the data subject(s).

Disclosure

Q1 - The criteria that’s used in deciding which cases should receive coverage by this service?

The MPS has adopted the College of Policing’s Media Relations Authorised Professional Practice (APP) as its media policy with supplementary and additional MPS specific guidance as required. The policy provides a framework for which matters are publicised.

For more information on this APP media policy please follow the link below:
College of Policing - APP

Q2 - The criteria that’s used in deciding which cases should not receive coverage by this service?

The MPS has adopted the College of Policing’s Media Relations Authorised Professional Practice (APP) as its media policy with supplementary and additional MPS specific guidance as required. The policy provides a framework for which matters are publicised.

For more information on this APP media policy please follow the link below:
College of Policing - APP

Q3 - Please provide the staffing structure of the press team.

Please see the attached document titled organogram for the answer to this question.

Q4 - Please advise if any payment is made to individuals who write/supply the press release?

Press releases about the MPS are written by media officers within the Met’s DMC – these media officers are MPS salaried staff.

Q5 - Please advise if the MET Police receives any payment from professional users of the Press Releases (eg a newspaper) for use of the information contained within?

No, it does not.

Q6 - Please provide any guidance to the press release team in the event they are seen to be competing with local freelance news reporters.

There is no such guidance.

Q7 - Please provide any media law training that is offered to writers of the press releases.

Media law training is given at regular intervals to members of DMC by an external supplier. It covers issues such as the court process, when a matter is sub-judice, contempt laws and reporting restrictions.

Q8 - Specifically, with regards to the story mentioned above, please provide copies of internal correspondence in relation to the publication of this story. Eg the email bringing it to the attention of the press team. Any comments on whether this is a ‘good story’ or not.

Please see the attached documents for the answer to this question. Please note several exemptions have been applied to certain data within these emails. As a result this data has been redacted.