Cost of Operation Grange

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.026744

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. What are the current total costs?
2. How much was spent on overseas travel, hotels etc in 2020 to date
3. What countries were visited.

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 30 – Investigations and proceedings conducted by the public authority

Reason for decision

The Operation Grange team have advised that the disclosure of the information you have requested for ‘question 3 - What countries were visited,’ must be carefully managed in order to ensure that there is no prejudice to their investigation.

Disclosure in respect of a single FOI request is unlikely to be problematic, however piecemeal disclosure for multiple requests over the course of a year may allow for patterns of travel to be identified and would be likely to indicate the level of activity and the current focus of the operation.

We appreciate the desire for transparency concerning the use of funds in respect of all operations and particularly in respect of long running operations such as Operation Grange. However it is vital we protect the integrity of the investigation.

The MPS are committed to transparency in this area however there are significant concerns around repeated disclosures at various times throughout the year especially where such a disclosure would concern recent travel (if there was any).

In order to explain this I will again put forward a hypothetical scenario. If we were to reveal that in the very recent past (last week/month) there had been a sudden flurry of visits to Portugal this would indicate that officers are pursuing a specific line of enquiry within the country. As you may be aware all FOI disclosures are published on our website so such a disclosure would be available to the public at large and that includes individuals who have been involved in, or are responsible for, criminality. Clearly, such information could have a serious impact on the investigation, as knowledge of such matters would allow offenders to take steps to avoid apprehension. This is particularly so when disclosure would be made with copies of receipts which indicates specific locations and dates.

Mosaic effect

Disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act can have unintended consequences especially when the subject matter relates to ongoing investigations. Requests are led by the requestors who set the parameters and submit request at various times throughout the year. This can be problematic and to illustrate that I would like to re-use a hypothetical example.

If we were to confirm to person A that the last flight to Portugal was in August 2017 in isolation that may not be harmful. However, if person B submits a request two weeks later and the answer has changed to show that travel was made just a few days ago the difference in the responses to person A and person B would indicate that there has been a recent need to travel to Portugal, furthermore it's theoretically possible that at the time of the request officers from Operation Grange could still be overseas. Clearly if we were to find ourselves in this situation it would be considered a highly sensitive matter and a significant risk to the ongoing operation.

The above scenario uses hypothetical travel in August 2017 and May 2018 however the issue is not lessened by limiting it to last year and this year. For example if person A submits their request on 1st March and gets a "2017" answer (without the month) but person B submits the request on 1st May and gets as "2018" answer comparison of the two requests would still show that the travel took place within a two month window.

This decision has been made because the provision of the specific details requested could potentially disclose sensitive data such as whether a single claim was submitted for accommodation (indicating the enquiry focused on a single area within Portugal) or whether multiple claims were submitted for accommodation (indicating a need for travel to various locations within Portugal). Considering this is an ongoing investigation such details are extremely sensitive and are not for disclosure.

Why does the section 30 exemption apply?
As you would expect, the MPS must protect the integrity of our investigation, however we are also keenly aware of the public's interest in this investigation and therefore a careful balance is needed to show that we are accountable for our decisions and actions taken on this matter.
The exemption provide under section 30 of the Act is qualified and therefore I am required to provide you with a public interest test.

It is important to acknowledge that this is an ongoing investigation into the disappearance of a child. As with all investigations, it is of paramount importance that the response to a Freedom of Information request does not disrupt or have any negative impact on that investigation. Clearly, such disruption to an investigation would not be in the best interests of the public. The length of time and money that is put into an investigation does not diminish the argument above.

The decision on disclosure has been made based on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public, but is what would be of greater good to the public as a whole, if the information were disclosed.

Disclosure

Q1 - What are the current total costs?

The current total spend for Operation Grange is £12,944,155

Q2 - How much was spent on overseas travel, hotels etc in 2020 to date

The approx. costs of overseas travel for officers since 2020 amounts to £5155