Grenfell Community Impact Assessment

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.025458

I note you seek access to the following information:

I wish to see a full copy of the ‘Grenfell Community Impact Assessment’ that was produced by MPS Kensington & Chelsea on 18 June 2017

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(1) - Investigations
Section 31(1) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

I wish to see a full copy of the ‘Grenfell Community Impact Assessment’ that was produced by MPS Kensington & Chelsea on 18 June 2017

Regarding any further information in relation to the Grenfell Community Impact Assessment’ CIA, the MPS has applied the following exemptions. The Report contains names, phone numbers and intelligence that could, if placed in the public domain, identify individuals, communities and could harm any related investigations. The following exemptions have been applied. The report has been redacted accordingly.

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can be answered. The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

Section 30(1)(a) – Investigations - of the Act states that information should be exempt if the question asked refers to information gathered for the purposes of an investigation.

Public Authorities are able to withhold information relating to investigations where its release would or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon other investigations or the prosecution of offenders.

Under the Act we cannot and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world.
This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals or any possible criminal and/or civil process.

The MPS does not generally disclose information from investigations except through our Directorate of Media & Communication to the media. This is so potential witnesses are not discouraged to come forward and provide statements in relation to investigations.

The manner in which investigations are conducted is usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

Detailing specific information relating to an investigation will give a clear insight into the nature and scope of any enquiry. Should the public be given such information suspects or potential suspects not yet arrested or interviewed could be alerted to police interest or the extent of police interest. As such while such information may seem innocuous there is the potential for that information to frustrate the operational enquiry team by alerting suspects or giving then prior notice of police activity.

During the course of any investigation enquires are made to secure evidence. These enquires are made for the duration of the case and are based upon proven methods as well as the judgement and experience of the officer(s) in charge of the investigation.

The MPS is reliant upon these techniques to conduct its investigations and the public release of the modus operandi employed during the course of any enquiry could prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct further, similar investigations.

Some of the cases may be ongoing investigations, the MPS would not wish to jeopardise the outcome by providing an ongoing commentary.

Section 31(1) - Law Enforcement - Section 31(1)(a)(b) is engaged in this case as disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention and detection of crimes and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Full release would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and strategies and would also hinder any future investigations or review investigations into similar matters.

Full disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational information into the public domain which would enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to try and map strategies and tactics used by police forces.

Release would have the effect of compromising law enforcement processes and would also hinder the ability of the MPS to fulfil its primary aim of enforcing the law and protecting the public. Any intelligence contained within the CIA is in use by Officers any release of tactical information could harm our ability to conduct that assessment and reduce our ability to conduct future investigations.

Disclosure would technically be releasing information into the public domain which would enable those with the capacity and inclination to try and use the information to commit crime or evade justice.

Care must be taken to not compromise any strand of an investigation or cause any undue harm to any people or families involved.

The MPS has a duty to protect both witnesses and suspects of criminal investigations and the integrity of tried and tested investigative techniques used now and for future criminal investigations. Therefore, I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested information far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.

The full disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS with investigations. Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental effect, reducing the quality of information the MPS receives and consequently compromising the effectiveness of any investigation.

The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would inhibit the flow of free and frank discussion, sharing of advice and best practices for investigations between police services. Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental effect on the thoroughness, efficiency and effectiveness of police investigations and ultimately the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.

Section 40(2)(3) - Personal Information - states that information should be exempt if the question asked constitutes a request for personal information which is not the requestors.

Details of an investigation could cause an individual to be identified and is therefore exempted in this case.

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. Some of the information sought under your Freedom of Information request includes the following which we consider to be Personal Data

• Names, telephone numbers and email addresses could, if disclosed, identify an individual.

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.

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.

It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 30, 31 & 40 to the same pieces of information.

Disclosure

Please find attached two pdf’s, pursuant to your request for information.