Information of various OG files

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.024866

I note you seek access to the following information:

In the past your department have been extremely helpful in helping me to understand what historical records are still retained by the Metropolitan Police related to the period between 1965 and 1985, the subject of my research. In particular, Mr Baird deserves a special mention, as he has been most helpful with previous FOI requests.

In January 2022, two spreadsheets (both attached), the first setting out a list of descriptions of all OG files retained by the MPS and the second setting out the OG reference numbers recorded between 1965 and 1985 (re. FOI/22/022656).

My longstanding interest has been in establishing the filenames and/or descriptions of these retained records, though I appreciate that the job of redacting all personal information from these filenames and/or descriptions has made releasing the full list impractical. Therefore, following the advice of Mr Baird, and in an effort to reduce the burden placed on your department, I would like to request a list of the filenames and/or descriptions for only those files within the following OG ‘file cuts’

• OG9 – Police Training and Education (49 files)
• OG14 – Police Representative Organisations (65 files)
• OG20 – Enquiries Regarding Candidates for Other Forces (3 files)
• OG27 – Aid to Other Forces (27 files)
• OG30 – Civil Defence (51 files)
• OG35 – Strength and Establishment (22 files)

To be clear, I am not requesting copies of the files themselves. Rather, I would like an excel spreadsheet that includes columns listing 1) the file reference, 2) the date reacted, and 3) the filename and/or description. As I understand from conversations with Mr Baird, this data can be easily extracted from your records management software. I have deliberate limited the number of files (215 in total) so as to exclude those whose descriptions many require redaction under s40 of the Act (e.g. OG1 Complaints Against the Police, OG7 Personal Records of Police Officers).

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 24(1) - National Security
Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 24(1) - National Security & Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - Under Section 24(1) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information that is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. Section 31(1)(a) 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. Section 24 and 31 are qualified exemptions.

The requested file descriptions contain information that is operationally sensitive, in that this information could assist the offender to commit offences. The MPS has a statutory role in both preventing and detecting crime. Should the MPS release this information, there are two likely consequences. Firstly those that are intent on committing criminal offences would be better informed. A better informed offender would be more confident in committing offences, increasing the likelihood that they would commit crime. Secondly a better informed offender would be more difficult for police to detect, which would make it more challenging for police to prevent and detect crime.

The public release of information that would be likely to lead to further crime being committed and/or would have an adverse effect on the ability of the MPS to prevent and detect crime, is unlikely to be in the public interest.

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 and public confidence 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 the release of operationally sensitive material contained within two file descriptions would, if released, inform the offender assisting them to commit offences. Its release would also harm the Met’s ability to both prevent and detect crime. Having carefully considered this, I found that the public release of any information that would assist the offender to commit offences or would otherwise harm the Met’s ability to prevent and detect crime, to be contrary to the public interest. I have accordingly refused to release the information described above in response to your request for information.

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.

The requested file descriptions contain the name and warrant number of a former MPS Detective Chief Superintendent and a former MPS Detective Superintendent. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

a. The disclosure of the located personal data would satisfy a legitimate interest, being to identify which former police officers were involved in the work referred to in each file description. I consider that disclosure of this personal data would satisfy a legitimate interest, given that employees of the MPS are public servants and the requested personal data concerns each public servant’s former professional role.

b. The disclosure of this information is necessary to meet the legitimate interest identified at point a above.

c. The former MPS employees named in the requested file descriptions are unlikely to expect their names to be published in response to this Freedom of Information Act request. This is particularly the case as the personal data was recorded for internal use only in 1985 when there was no Freedom of Information Act or similar disclosure legislation. Release of this personal data would accordingly be unexpected, unfair and potentially distressing to the data subjects. In this regard, the disclosure of this personal data would be likely to cause unwarranted harm to each data subject.

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

Please refer to the attached spreadsheet.