Legal framework of second employments of police officers
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.026225
I note you seek access to the following information:
1. Is it legal for a police officer to have a second employment (or ancillary activities) in your respective country?
2. Do you have a legal framework in your respective country, for second employments (or ancillary activities) for police officers?
3. Do you have clear permissible second employment (or ancillary activities) that police officers can involve, in your respective country? (For example to be only teachers in Educational activities, relevant with their police work etc).
4. Do you have forbidden second employment (or ancillary activities) that police officers cannot involve, in your respective country? (For example, not be able to participate in corporate schemes etc).
5. Is it possible a police officer to obtain a grant (or permission) for a second employment, in your respective country? Who is the person that gives this permission (The General Chief of the Police, their immediate Commander, the respective jurisdiction Local Commander, etc)?
6. Do you have evaluation criteria for second employment (or ancillary activities) in order to access them if they permitable or not? (For example within the Greek legal framework police officers may engage in private remunerated work if
(a) it is compatible with the duties of the post;
(b) does not interfere with the proper performance of the official duties; and
(c) does not give rise to unfavourable comments against the official or the corps)
7. If a police officer exercises any permissible ancillary activity (or second employment), without the required authorisation, is it constitutes a disciplinary offence and which is the sentence for it (fine, temporally dismiss from the agency, permanent dismiss from the agency)?
8. If a police officer exercises any permissible ancillary activity (or second employment), without the required authorisation, is it punishable according to your national law and which is the sentence for it (fine, jail etc)?
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 21(1) – Information reasonable accessible by other means
Section 31(1)(a) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) – Personal Information
Reason for decision
Section 21(1) - Information Accessible to Applicant by Other Means - provides public authorities with an exclusion from the duty to disclose information under Section 1(1)(b) of the Act, when the information requested is reasonably accessible to the applicant. This exemption has been claimed in providing links to information that is available in the public domain.
Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - 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.
Annex F of the MPS Business Interest policy contains the name of the Business Support Manager of the DPS. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:
a. This member of staff does not hold a role or rank/grade where they would reasonably expect their name to be published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Additionally, their name is recorded in this document for internal use only within the MPS as a part of the business interest appeal process. 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.
Section 31(1)(a) - 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.
I have claimed this exemption in that the release and publication of the telephone number of the DPS Management Support Unit would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, with information that would assist them in this endeavour.
Disruption to the Work of MPS Employees - The release and publication of the telephone number of the DPS Management Support Unit, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the unit, with information that would assist them to do so. In this regard, a person with this intent would be likely to use this information to make inappropriate contact with members of staff working in this unit. 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/or detect crime.
Evaluation - 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 by disclosure. Having carefully considered this, I have found that that the public release and publication of the telephone numbers of members of staff employed in the DPS Management Support Unit 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 being disclosed, I have found that the release of this information is not in the public interest. I have accordingly refused to release the information described above in response to your request for information.
Supporting information - In considering the information disclosed, it should be noted that the MPS is responsible for policing the MPS district only. The MPS district consists of 620 square miles within Greater London, England, excluding the City of London. Please find a link to the MPS website below in which the area policed by the MPS is explained.
MPS Website - Met Jurisdiction
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), the MPS is only required to provide recorded information held in respect of its own policies and procedures albeit some of the information provided also applies to police forces across England and Wales.
I have provided the located information to you. In disclosing the located information to you, I have removed the names of staff members and internal MPS telephone numbers.
Disclosure
The business interests of police officers in England and Wales are governed by Regulations 7-9 of the Police (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2012. The business interests of Metropolitan Special Constabulary (MSC) police officers are regulated by the Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 2012. I have provided links to the applicable regulations below.
The Police (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2012
The Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 2012
In the MPS only, the business interests of police officers are also governed by the Business Interests policy. It should be noted that this policy only applies to employees of the MPS. I have disclosed this policy alongside this notice.
It may assist you to note that the MPS employees both salaried and volunteer police officers. The business interests of salaried police officers are regulated by the aforementioned Police (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2012 whilst the business interests of volunteer police officers in the MSC (also referred to as Special Constables) are governed by the Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 2012. I have provided a link which provides further information about both salaried and volunteer police officer roles below.
MPS Careers
I have also provided answers to each of your requests for information below.
Q1 - Is it legal for a police officer to have a second employment (or ancillary activities) in your respective country?
Answer: Yes, please refer to Regulations 7-9 of the Police (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2012 and The Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 2012. Both regulate the business interests of police officers in England and Wales.
Q2 - Do you have a legal framework in your respective country, for second employments (or ancillary activities) for police officers?
Answer: Please see the answer to question 1 above.
Q3 - Do you have clear permissible second employment (or ancillary activities) that police officers can involve, in your respective country? (For example to be only teachers in Educational activities, relevant with their police work etc).
Answer: The MPS Business Interests policy (Annex A) provides examples of compatible and incompatible business interests for MPS employees. It should be noted that each employee’s request to undertake a business interest is considered on its individual merits. It should also be noted that this policy only applies to employees of the MPS.
Q4 - Do you have forbidden second employment (or ancillary activities) that police officers cannot involve, in your respective country? (For example, not be able to participate in corporate schemes etc).
Answer: Please see the answer to questions 1-3 above
Q5 - Is it possible a police officer to obtain a grant (or permission) for a second employment, in your respective country? Who is the person that gives this permission (The General Chief of the Police, their immediate Commander, the respective jurisdiction Local Commander, etc)?
Answer: Please see the answer to question 1-3 above. Within the MPS, the Commissioner of the MPS (the Met’s most senior officer) has delegated responsibility to an officer holding the rank of Chief Superintendent within the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS). This is set out in the provided MPS Business Interests policy.
Q6 - Do you have evaluation criteria for second employment (or ancillary activities) in order to access them if they perimitable or not? (For example within the Greek legal framework police officers may engage in private remunerated work if
(a) it is compatible with the duties of the post;
(b) does not interfere with the proper performance of the official duties; and
(c) does not give rise to unfavourable comments against the official or the corps)
Answer: Yes, for MPS employees, this is set out in the provided MPS Business Interests policy.
Q7 - If a police officer exercises any permissible ancillary activity (or second employment), without the required authorisation, is it constitutes a disciplinary offence and which is the sentence for it (fine, temporally dismiss from the agency, permanent dismiss from the agency)?
Answer: The MPS Business Interests policy states:
“Failure to notify a business interest, additional employment or political activity or to continue with such activity when it has been deemed incompatible could result in formal disciplinary action being taken, which may ultimately result in dismissal from the Met. This is applicable to both police officers and police staff.”
Q8 - If a police officer exercises any permissible ancillary activity (or second employment), without the required authorisation, is it punishable according to your national law and which is the sentence for it (fine, jail etc)?
Answer: An employee conducting a business interests without authorisation could constitute a criminal offence in certain circumstances, however it is more likely to be dealt with as a potential breach of the standards of professional behaviour in accordance with the MPS misconduct process. Please see the answer to question 7 above.