Copies of the Live Facial Recognition Application/WAD/Cancellation Report

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.026317

I note you seek access to the following information:

Copies of the Live Facial Recognition Application / WAD / Cancellation Report documents for the last three LFR deployments by the Met Police

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)&(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 31 Exemption has been applied because the information requested contains details that form part of police intelligence. The MPS believes that release of the document in its entirety could negatively impact upon law enforcement, investigative enquiries and intelligence gathering.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) – 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 or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

You have requested copies of the Live Facial Recognition Application / WAD / Cancellation Report documents for the last three LFR deployments by the Met Police. The MPS employs covert tactics in its policing operations and these tactics are often reused. The documents requested contain information that, if released into the public domain, would be invaluable to those with criminal intent and it would render these tactics useless. Investigations are conducted in a manner which is usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

Criminals could utilise the information requested to determine vulnerabilities and target areas where they see a potential area to exploit. This would have an adverse impact on the MPS’ ability to prevent and detect crimes and would allow criminals to gain knowledge about capabilities and investigative processes. This would undermine the operational integrity of our activities, which would adversely affect law enforcement.

Any information released under FOIA is also published on the MPS website and is then available to everyone. The MPS has no control over what use is made of that information once published and, whilst not questioning the motives of any applicant, to provide information that we believe would prejudice law enforcement or reveal policing tactics, would adversely affect law enforcement.

To disclose the documents requested would render current tactics and strategies useless and more resources would have to be utilised which will increase the cost to the public purse.

It cannot be in the public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS’ ability to accomplish its core functions of law enforcement. The MPS is reliant upon the techniques used during investigations and the public release of the information requested would compromise law enforcement.

The MPS accepts 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.

Release of the documents requested would have the likelihood of identifying location-specific operations which would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and future prosecutions as criminals could counteract the measures used against them. Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations.

Having carefully considered all of the above, I have found that that the public release and publication of the Live Facial Recognition Application / WAD / Cancellation Report documents for the last three LFR deployments by the Met Police would render current tactics and strategies useless which will increase the cost to the public purse which cannot be in the public interest.

Section 40 Exemption has also been applied and this is because personal details of individuals have been removed, namely warrant numbers and names. Release of these details into the public domain will breach the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

We believe that release of this personal information would not constitute fair processing of the data as these details would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS with information that would assist them to do so to cause disruption by making inappropriate contact with individuals.

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 document contains names and warrant numbers of members of staff which the MPS considers is of a personal nature. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that the MPS employees named in the requested documents would not reasonably expect their details 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.

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.

Disclosure

Please refer to the attached pdf.