Custody Policy Toolkit

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.022496

I note you seek access to the following information:

I was wondering if you could provide and update this link if a more up to date version exists https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/policies/custody-toolkit?
Bear in mind this link appears to include various policies.

Could you provide an up-to-date copy of “Custody Policy Toolkit – Detainees – Questions and Answers (Q&As)” or equivalent if title has changed?

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 31(1)(a) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

We wrote to you on 12/2/2022 advising that the current policy document contained a range of policies, broken down into 4 categories: Buildings, Detainees, Healthcare and Staffing totalling 106 pages. We also advised you that the Q&A section was no longer present in the new document. We asked for clarification on whether you required a specific section or the entire policy.

You responded on 23/2/2022 advising that the ‘Detainees’ part of the policy would be sufficient.

When a request for information is made under 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 document contains names and contact details of individuals and contractors who assist the MPS in the course of their duty, which has been removed/redacted. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

Names of contractors and other individuals - The contractors and other individuals named in the requested records would not reasonably expect their names to be published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. I have not identified a legitimate interest that would be satisfied in disclosing their personal data in response to this request for information.

Email addresses and telephone numbers - The public release of the email addresses and telephone numbers of contractors and other individuals that corresponded in connection with the Freedom of Information Act request recorded under the references above would not satisfy any identifiable 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 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 contractors and other individuals or general MPS email addresses, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, with information that would assist them in this endeavour.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 31(1)(a) is both qualified and prejudice based. I am accordingly required to conduct a public interest test to determine whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information. In addition to conducting a public interest test, I must also establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that would result from disclosure and where prejudice/harm is established but not certain, determine the likelihood of it occurring.

Disruption to the Work of MPS Employees - The release and publication of the telephone numbers, email addresses and other contact details of MPS teams, contractors and other individuals, would provide persons intent on disrupting their work, 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 those individuals and/or send them vast amounts of unsolicited correspondence. This would impede the resources of these individuals and also cause disruption to the work of the MPS.

I have found that that the public release and publication of the telephone numbers, email addresses and other contact details of members of staff, contractors and other individuals would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of MPS and other organisations under contract with the 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. I have accordingly refused to release the information described above in response to your request for information.

The information provided is in a redacted format, that is, I have removed information that I consider to be exempt under the Act. A series of asterisks (i.e. *****) denote where exempt information has been removed.

Disclosure

Please find attached redacted copy of the ‘Detainees’ section of the policy.