Data on burglaries in specific neighbourhoods across London from January 2017 to August 2022
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.026181
I note you seek access to the following information:
I would like to know how many burglaries were reported in the following neighbourhoods:
• Finsbury Park (N4)
• Mile End (E1, E3, E14)
• Southfields (SW18)
• Stockwell (SW9)
• Caledonian Road (N1)
• Kilburn (NW6)
• Earlsfield (SW18)
• Stratford (E15)
• New Cross (SE14)
• Leyton (E10)
I would like the information from the last 5 years broken down by month.
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)(a)(i) – Criminal Investigations
Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information
Reason for decision
You have asked for the number of burglaries reported in specified neighbourhoods, to post-code level, for the last 5 years, broken down by year and month.
I have made the decision to disclose the information you are seeking, however, due to extremely low figures I am unable to break the data down by month, as if we were to disclose the information broken down in this way, when the specific offence type is also disclosed, this could identify specific incidents/offences, and individuals concerned. Any such disclosure would release sensitive personal information in relation to individuals concerned into the public domain, i.e., that they had been the victim of crime, and would prejudice investigations. I have therefore made the decision to provide the information broken down by year and the following Sections under the Act are engaged to refuse the further information you are seeking in this case:
Section 30(1)(a)(i) – Criminal Investigations - The release of information broken down to the granularity you are seeking could identify specific investigations which would impact upon ongoing investigations. The outcome for some of the offences have yet to be determined therefore, to release any further information would compromise our law enforcement investigative functions. Any disclosure, which would prejudice an ongoing investigation and therefore hinder an individual’s right to a fair trial cannot be in the public interest.
There is a public interest in the transparency of the investigation of crime and providing assurance that the MPS is appropriately and effectively dealing with criminal activity.
However, there is also a strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations, by not releasing information that could hinder that investigation and prejudice the outcome of any legal proceedings.
I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure, particularly given the level of information disclosed today – which I believe satisfies the wider public interest.
Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – 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 number of offences broken down by location to post-code level, and month, it is highly likely that individuals could be identified due to low figures when broken down to this level of granularity.
Having considered the data, I have found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that if we were to provide the requested data broken down by month this would, due to low figures, identify specific incidents/offences, and by virtue of this, could also identify individuals concerned and release sensitive personal information in relation to individuals into the public domain. Any such disclosure would not be in accordance with the first principle. Although I understand there is an interest in the number and type of offences that have been committed in specific areas, 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 an offence. 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.
Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would identify any living individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). I have applied this exemption in that the identity of individuals that may be realised through providing the information broken down in the format you have requested would constitute personal data which, if released, would be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.
The six principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that providing information that identifies individuals constitutes personal data. The release of this information would be unfair as the persons concerned would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly available.
In reaching my decision, I have, in each case, given due regard to the condition at Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(e) of the GDPR. Condition one of the GDPR requires that consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that consideration is given to performance of a public task in the public interest.
Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is present or would likely be received to release this 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
Information considered suitable for disclosure is attached. Please ensure that the data is read in conjunction with the notes page of the attached spreadsheet to ensure correct interpretation of the data provided.
DUTY TO ADVISE AND ASSIST
It may be of interest to you that stats and data to Safer Neighbourhood team level is published on the Crime data dashboard on the MPS website, and the data can be filtered by month. To access this please select the link below:
The site is interactive:
• Select the ‘Overview of Crimes’ tab from the top left of the MPS Crime Dashboard.
Use the filter(s) to update the visuals:
• Select the Geographical level to Safer Neighbourhood Teams.
• Select the Area Name to the Safer Neighbourhood ward you are interested in, ensuring you also select ‘apply’ to set your selection.
• Select the Offence type and offence Subgroup you are interested in, i.e. burglary, and apply.
• Select the relevant start and end dates.