Data on honour based crime in 2020 & 2021

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.026610

I note you seek access to the following information:

Number of honour-based incidents reported/recorded for the calendar years January 2020 to January 2021 and for January 2021 to January 2022.

Please could you break down this information into categories of the types of incidents reported, i.e. murder, suicide, rape, kidnap, FGM, death threats, domestic abuse, forced marriage (or other cases).

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)(c) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3)(a)(i) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

You have also asked us to disclose the number of honour-based incidents reported/ recorded from 01/01/2020 to 01/01/2022, broken down by year, and have further asked for this information to be broken down by offence type. Unfortunately however, due to low figures located for some offence types it is not possible to provide this break down as to do so would identify specific incidents and individuals concerned and could, when linked to a reported offence, release personal sensitive information into the public domain. For this reason Section 40(2)(3A)(a) of the Act, which provides an exemption for personal information has been applied to refuse disclosure in this case. Furthermore, as any such disclosure could identify specific incidents/offences and could prejudice our ability to prevent or detect crime, or to apprehend or prosecution offenders, Section 31 (1)(a)(b)(c), which relates to law enforcement, has also been applied.

When considering identifiability it should be assumed that the MPS are not looking just at the means reasonably likely to be used by the ordinary person in the street, but also the means that are likely to be used by a determined person with a particular reason to want to identify individuals. Identified’ does not necessarily mean ‘named’. It can be enough to be able to establish a reliable connection between particular information and a known individual.’

Section 31 – Law Enforcement - The release of the additional information you are seeking could identify specific offences and investigations. If we routinely disclosed information that identified specific offences and investigations this could alert offenders as to whether offences they have committed have been reported to police or not, and whether those offences, and those individuals responsible, are being actively investigated or pursued by police. Furthermore, victims of crime, and witnesses, would be less likely to report offences to police if information about those offences and investigations were then subsequently published and due to low data, they were identified.

Disclosure would lead to victims and witnesses being less likely to report crime to police.

Disclosure would prejudice law enforcement and impact on our ability to prevent or detect crime and to apprehend or prosecute offenders.

There is a public interest in the transparency of how the police respond to and investigate offences and providing assurance that the MPS is appropriately and effectively dealing with criminal activity. However, safeguarding victims is paramount and any disclosure that would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension of offenders cannot be in the public interest.

Section 40(2)(3)&(4) – Personal Information - There are six data protection principles that are set out in Section 34 of the Data Protection Act 2018. The first principle requires that the disclosure of the requested personal data must be lawful and fair. Under the Act, 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 information contains personal data that I consider exempt under the Act. For example, were we to disclose the information broken down to the level that you are seeking when low numbers have been located, it is possible that this would identify specific incidents/offences/investigations, and by virtue of this, could also identify individuals concerned and release sensitive personal information in relation to those individuals into the public domain. Having considered the legitimate interest test any such disclosure would not be in accordance with the first principle of the Data Protection Act.

Although I understand there is an interest in the number and type of offences that have been committed that are also flagged as ‘honour-based’, I believe this interest has been satisfied by the release of the disclosed information. I do not believe that providing any more details, when there is a reasonable risk that the additional information would identify individuals involved would add to any wider public debate that may be ongoing.

Furthermore I do not think it would be fair to the individuals concerned if information was disclosed that identified them as being linked in any way to any incident. For example, a victim would not expect us to disclose the fact that they were such, and may not wish for family, or colleagues, to know they had reported a crime to police; and an individual who was later found to not be involved would be unfairly stigmatised.

Disclosure

Information considered suitable for disclosure is attached. As outlined earlier in this response, due to low numbers some offence categories have been combined.

Please ensure that the data provided is read in conjunction with the notes page of the attached spreadsheet to ensure correct interpretation of the data provided.