Emails sent and received by Cressida Dick relating to the Daniel Morgan case

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.025113

I note you seek access to the following information:

“* Please provide copies of all emails sent and received by Cressida Dick between June 10 this year and the time of this email which relate to the Daniel Morgan case;

* Please provide copies of all emails sent and received by Nick Ephgrave between June 11 and the time of this email which relate to the Daniel Morgan case.”

On the 21 September 2021, I responded to your request and stated:

“I have found this request to be burdensome. This means that, having given appropriate regard to the amount of work required to complete your request, I consider that doing so would be disproportionate. In citing the exemption set out by Section 14 of the Act, the MPS is not required to provide the information sought in response to this request for information.”
I further explained that the searches completed in connection with your request located 65 email chains and a further 26 documents attached to the emails, excluding the published report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel. To assist you in narrowing your request, I stated:

“Should you wish to refine your request, you may wish to consider:

• Limiting your request to the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner Ephgrave

And

• Reducing the timeframe of your request

And

• Excluding attachments from the scope of your request for information

Alternatively if you would like to discuss refining your request, please send me your telephone number and I will call you at a time that is convenient to you.”

On the 21 September 2021, you refined your request in the following way:

“I would like to limit my request to emails sent and received by Nick Ephgrave.”

On the 16 October 2021, I responded to your refined request and stated:

“Having reconsidered your refined request and considered the guidance of the Information Commissioner (the Freedom of Information Act ombudsman) upon burdensome requests, I have found that this request remains burdensome. This means that, having given appropriate regard to the amount of work required to complete your request, I consider that doing so would be disproportionate”.

In responding your request, I provided you with the following advice under the Act:

“To enable the MPS to consider your request, please consider:

• Reducing the timeframe of your request

And

• Excluding attachments from the scope of your request for information”

On the 5 June 2022, you wrote to me and stated:

“I would like to limit my request to the commissioner and exclude attachments.

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

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - of the Act 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 requested email chains contain telephone numbers and email addresses that 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.

Please find the public interest test considerations that I have identified and considered in relation to claiming Section 31(1)(a) of the Act.

Disruption to the Work of Senior Members of Staff - The release of the contact details (i.e. email addresses and telephone numbers) of members of staff, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, with information that would assist them to do so. In this regard, a person within this intent would be likely to use this information to make inappropriate contact with members of staff and/or send them vast amounts of unsolicited correspondence. This would tie up the resources of these members of staff and cause disruption to the work of the MPS, hindering its ability to prevent and detect crime.

When considering whether the release of information is in the public interest, I have to consider whether the public interest is in favour of releasing information into the public domain or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding the requested information. Having considered your request, I accept 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 through disclosure.

Having carefully considered this, I have found that the public release and publication of the contact details of members of staff, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of 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 disclosed, I have found that the release of this information is not in the public interest.

Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information – of the Act 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 emails contains the names of persons holding the rank of Superintendent and below and Band A and below. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

a. The employees holding the rank of Superintendent and below and Band A and below, are unlikely to expect their names to be published in response to this Freedom of Information Act request. Given their roles and/or level of responsibility within the MPS, 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

These searches located 5 email chains that are relevant to your request for information.