Offences allegedly committed by members of the Chinese Embassy

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.026892

I note you seek access to the following information:

Since 2019, has the Metropolitan Police reported to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office any offenses allegedly committed by members of the Chinese Embassy who are entitled to diplomatic immunity. If so, what were they?

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(3) – Investigations and Proceedings
Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(5) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

In addition, the Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny (NCND) that it holds any further information relating to reported offences of this nature as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following sections:

Section 30(3) – Investigations and Proceedings & Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement - Every effort should be made to release information under Freedom of Information. However, to confirm or deny any information or policing actions would undermine ongoing investigations by revealing whether further offences may, or may not, have been recorded. This would undermine the effective delivery of operational law enforcement by revealing the focus of police activity.

The MPS will not divulge information relating to ongoing investigations or the focus of police activity as to do so would undermine both tactical and investigative processes. Confirming or denying whether any further information is held would be of use to those who seek to disrupt police activity, as it would reveal details of whether certain offences have been reported, which may assist individuals to determine who is, or is not, a subject of investigation.

Confirming or denying whether further information is, or is not, held that may relate to an ongoing investigation could hinder the prevention or detection of crime and impact upon that investigation.

We would not wish to reveal any details, such as whether certain information is or is not held regarding any further reported offences, as this would clearly undermine the investigative process.

Confirming or denying whether or not further information is held, would mean that law enforcement tactics would be compromised, which could hinder the prevention and detection of crime. Disclosing further information on the nature of reported offences, if held, would allow those who may be the subject of current or future investigations to gain knowledge of the status of any such investigations.

Confirmation or denial of whether further information is, or is not, held would technically be releasing operational information into the public domain, which would therefore undermine policing capabilities and may prove prejudicial to its law enforcement role.

Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively managing its resources, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of any police investigations and operations that may be ongoing. There is a need to ensure that any investigation is not compromised by confirming or denying whether particular information may be held before the conclusion of enquiries or investigations.

Whilst it is appreciated that there is an ongoing public interest in knowing whether individuals undertaking diplomatic roles in the UK have committed criminal offences, there is also a strong public interest in protecting the integrity of ongoing police investigations and activities. Confirmation or denial of whether further information is held in relation to your request could be detrimental to current or future investigations and is therefore likely to prejudice law enforcement.

Section 40(5A) & (5B) (a) (i) - Personal information - is designed to address information that is covered by the Data Protection Act 2018.

Under section 40(5), the MPS is not required to comply with the requirements of section 1(1) (a) i.e. the duty to inform the applicant whether or not the information is held.

In most cases Personal Data is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as I will explain below.

To confirm or deny whether additional information exists could publicly reveal information about an identifiable individual or individuals, thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2018.

Where an individual is requesting his or her own personal data the information is always exempt. Such information can be requested under other legislation.
Where an individual is requesting third party personal data the MPS must ensure that any action taken adheres to the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the GDPR. To clarify, the Freedom of Information Act only allows disclosure of personal data if that disclosure would be compliant with the principles for processing personal data. These principles are outlined under section 34 of the DPA 2018 and under Article 5 of the GDPR.

Section 40 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in this case.

Please note this response should not be taken to as an indication of whether or not any additional information relating to your request is held.

Disclosure

A total of 37 offences have been reported to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since 1st January 2019 by the Metropolitan Police Service. These are broken down as follows:

• 34 Safety Camera Activations
• 1 Red Light Camera Activation
• 1 Fraud offence
• 1 Parking Ticket