Sarah Everard Vigil - Legal costs & Bianca Williams

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.024534

I note you seek access to the following information:

Q1. The cost to date (30/4/22) of your decision to challenge to decision you acted illegall in refusing the right of people to protest to death of Sarah Evered.

Q2. Also, the name, rank and role of the officer deciding to make that legal challenge.

Q3. Also, proof those making the challenge have the personal funds to repay the public if you fail in your legal challenge. I am sure you agree the public should not have to pay.

Q4. Also, with regards the Bianca Williams case. Can you confirm Dick will be subject to displicinary action if the case against againt the officer is proven. She did go public and condone what happened.

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(2) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 40(2) - Personal Information - Personal Information are absolute exemptions which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.

Q1 - The cost to date (30/4/22) of your decision to challenge to decision you acted illegall in refusing the right of people to protest to death of Sarah Evered.

The exemption provided by Section 40 has been applied, as disclosure of the information you have requested from question 1 is considered by the MPS to be personal and the MPS believes that its release would be unfair, constituting unfair processing of personal data under principle one of the Data Protection Act.
The information sought under your Freedom of Information request for ‘The cost to date (30/4/22) of your decision to challenge to decision you acted illegall in refusing the right of people to protest to death of Sarah Evered. We have interpreted legal costs to mean fees and disbursements paid to external counsel, as these relate to two individuals who have been named in the public domain, we consider this to be Personal Data.

Data Protection Act
Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is Personal Data.

The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption.

Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data the section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.

In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3A, 3B and 4A of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as amended by Section 58 of the Data Protection Act 2018).

The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.

There are six Data Protection principles set out in the 2018 act and these can be found at section 34.

In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which states that the processing (in this case the disclosure) of the data must be both lawful and fair.

Q3 - Also, proof those making the challenge have the personal funds to repay the public if you fail in your legal challenge. I am sure you agree the public should not have to pay.

The information is not held. The proceedings are not being pursued in a personal capacity. The decision to challenge the judgment in the case of Leigh v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has been taken in good faith in the best interests of the Metropolitan Police Service and its ability to serve the public.

Q4 - Also, with regards the Bianca Williams case. Can you confirm Dick will be subject to displicinary action if the case against againt the officer is proven. She did go public and condone what happened.

This is not a valid request for information within the everyday meaning of the legislation. To explain that further, S84 of FOIA relates to recorded information held by a public authority and that it does not extend to providing explanations unless the answers are already held in a recorded form.

"Information is defined in section 84 of the Act as 'information recorded in any form'. The Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded information. It does not require public authorities to answer questions generally; only if they already hold the answers in recorded form. The Act does not extend to requests for information about policies or their implementation, or the merits or demerits of any proposal or action - unless, of course, the answer to any such request is already held in recorded form." (Day vs ICO & DWP – EA/2006/0069 Final Decision)

Disclosure

Q2 - Also, the name, rank and role of the officer deciding to make that legal challenge.

The Directorate of Legal Services (DLS) represents the office of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The appeal was lodged upon instruction from the office of the Commissioner.