Investigation into the leak of diplomatic cables of Kim Darroch

Freedom of information request reference no: 0 01.FOI.22.026136

I note you seek access to the following information:

Please provide details of the outcome or current status of the Met's investigation into the leak of diplomatic cables of former UK ambassador to Washington Kim Darroch.

The most recent publicly available information (link below) that I can find regarding this case is from October 2020 and indicates that an arrest had been made. Presumably there must have been some further developments since then.

NEW REQUEST BELOW;
01/FOI/22/025863

I recently received a response to the above request, the response indicated that I should email this address if I had any further questions.

I am grateful for your response, however it doesn't tell me what the current status of the investigation is. It indicates that a man was arrested and ultimately released with no further action, however it doesn't indicate what if anything has happened since.

Can you confirm if any developments occurred subsequent to the man being released with no further action, and also confirm whether the investigation is still ongoing or has now been closed?

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).

In relation to the first part of your request, the Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny whether any developments occurred subsequent to the individual being released with no further action, as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement

Reason for decision

By confirming or denying whether there were any further developments as you have stated would provide a commentary on the investigative process and an insight into the enquiries conducted by police, whether or not any further intelligence was gathered and who this may have been received from. To disclose this information, if held, would allow those with a criminal intent to have a better understanding of how the MPS manages investigations, which would compromise our law enforcement functions and be detrimental to national security. As such, Sections 24(2) and 31(3) of the Act are engaged.

Section 24 - National Security - Confirming or denying specific details relating to any investigation, would be detrimental to the integrity of the investigative process. Disclosing information, if held, which concern policing activities which have taken place during this high profile investigation would render security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement - By confirming or denying that any further developments occurred could compromise the gathering of information and intelligence, which would hinder the investigation of crime.

Any disclosure of information, if held, which undermines the MPS’s ability to conduct similar police investigations and allows criminals to be aware of the types of activities this entails cannot be in the public interest. If we were to confirm that information were held and the specifics, this could be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.

An adverse disclosure of information which increases the probability of crimes being committed, would likely require the MPS to actually have to increase the amount of officers available to them, thus increasing the cost to the public purse.

The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the public interest to disclose any information, if held, that may compromise the MPS’s ability to accomplish its core functions of law enforcement.

In considering whether or not to confirm or deny that we hold any further information as has been requested, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by this disclosure.

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication, and as such is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying whether the MPS holds any further information relative to this request, would provide valuable intelligence to those with a criminal intent that could undermine the operational integrity of operational activities.

Regardless of whether information is or is not held, to provide either a confirmation or denial response will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on law enforcement and national security.

Public safety is of paramount importance to the policing purpose and must be taken into account in deciding whether to disclose information, if held, or not. To confirm or deny whether we hold information, would allow interested parties to gain an upper hand and awareness of policing decisions used to safeguard national security. Therefore, to confirm or deny any further developments occurred could potentially be misused proving detrimental to national security.

Police forces work in conjunction with other agencies and on a daily basis information is freely shared in line with information sharing protocols. Modern day policing is intelligence led and the public expect police forces to use all powers and tactics available to them to prevent and detect crime and maintain public security.
Irrespective of what information may or may not be held, to confirm or deny whether any further developments occurred subsequent to the individual’s release, may identify and undermine any future investigations into other criminal activities, some of which may be covert and may also compromise policing activity.

The security of the country and the integrity of police investigations is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether there were or were not any further developments, if to do so would undermine national security and law enforcement and therefore compromise the work of the Police Service.

As much as there is a public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced, in matters of National Security, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.

There is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals.

However, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the effectiveness of police investigations and operations in this area. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve and the release of any information, if held, that would be detrimental to these functions would clearly not be in the public interest.

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether there were any further developments in this investigation, as requested, is not made out.

However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

With regards to the second part of your request, the located information has been disclosed to you in full. Please see section entitled ‘Disclosure’.

Disclosure

In pursuant to the second part of your request above, the MPS can confirm that this investigation is now closed.