Officer broken professional standards in the use of social media
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.026596
I note you seek access to the following information:
I would like to know for the past year please:
• The number of officers found to have broken the force’s professional standards in their use of social media
• The number of officers found to have committed a) gross misconduct b) who were dismissed/resigned
• Where a misconduct finding was recorded, details of the breach in as much detail as possible within the time/cost framework.
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 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information
Section 31(1)(a)(b)(2)(b) - Law Enforcement
Reason for decision
I have made the decision to disclose the number of officers alleged to have been in breach of professional standards in their use of social media, as requested in your overarching question 1.
With reference to your question 2, however, due to extremely low numbers I am unable to disclose the number of those officers found to have committed gross misconduct who were dismissed or resigned, nor am I able to disclose details of the breach in as much detail as possible for those cases where a misconduct finding was recorded, as requested at your question 3, as disclosing the details of each case would identify specific investigations and would lead to the identification of individuals concerned. Any such disclosure would release sensitive personal information about individuals into the public domain, which would be intrusive and distressing and would breach the first Data Protection Act principle, and as such, would not be considered lawful. Disclosure to this level of granularity would also identify specific investigations, which would, or would be likely to prejudice our ability to ascertain whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper, and our ability to prevent or detect crime and apprehend or prosecute offenders, which would impact on law enforcement.
Section 31(1)(a)(b)(2)(b) - Law Enforcement - There is undoubtedly a call for openness and transparency with regard to misconduct hearings and this can be seen from the decision to publish outcomes of some hearings following sentencing. This acts as a reassurance to members of the public that the police thoroughly investigate and deal with allegations of misconduct/gross misconduct, expeditiously and thoroughly. That being said this is only ever done when deemed safe to do so from a law enforcement perspective and if we were to release information about specific investigations in response to a FOIA request this could potentially compromise ongoing misconduct investigations which would most certainly prejudice our ability to prevent or detect crime, apprehend or prosecute offenders, and ascertain whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper, which would ultimately undermine the effective delivery of operational law enforcement.
Disclosure of the additional information you are seeking would identify specific cases which would impact on our ability to prevent or detect crime, apprehend or prosecute offenders and ascertain whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper.
The strongest reason favouring disclosure of the additional information you are seeking is to encourage public debate about a matter of public interest to the community. The strongest reason favouring non-disclosure of the additional information sought is that it would undermine current and future investigations and impact on law enforcement.
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the public interest favours non-disclosure. I consider that the benefit that would result from releasing the additional information you are seeking does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure when this would undermine law enforcement and the abilities of the police to investigate allegations of improper behaviour/misconduct.
Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information - Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is personal data.
The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for personal data and this is known as the Section 40 exemption.
The information sought under your FOIA request includes low level data that could identify individuals if released, and the details of each case, which we consider to be the personal data of the individuals identifiable within the dataset, both the victims and the officers concerned.
Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data the Section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.
In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption, the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3(A), 3(B) and 4(A) of the Data Protection Act 2018.
The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.
There are six Data Protection principles specified within Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which requires that personal data shall be:
‘processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’);
Under the Data Protection Act 2018, 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.
Here, we need to balance the rights and freedoms of the individuals involved with any legitimate public interest in disclosure.
The MPS understands the arguments that can be made around the public interest and the desire to understand better how MPS employees conduct themselves, however, the requested data is personal to any individuals concerned.
It can be argued that the legitimate interest has been satisfied by the disclosure today of the overarching statistical figures. Disclosure of more details would be highly likely to lead to the identification of individuals and specific cases and would not be necessary or proportionate. Furthermore, the details of officers found guilty of gross misconduct are already made public in misconduct notices, as per our legal obligations, and those individuals would have no expectation that their details would be made public again in response to a FOIA request.
Finally, it is for the MPS to consider whether disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm to the data subjects, and it is extremely likely that such information, if disclosed, would be commented on and referred to publicly by the media – which would be distressing for all concerned parties and would have a lasting impact upon them. Furthermore, MPS privacy notices indicate that personal data is collected and used for policing purposes and will not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes.
With this in mind, the data subjects in the circumstances of your request would have a legitimate expectation that this personal data would not be used for non-policing purposes.
Disclosure of the details of these cases would be unlawful and would therefore contravene the first data protection principle.
I have therefore applied the exemption provided under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act to this information as the first condition, defined in subsection 3(A)(a) of Section 40 has been satisfied. This therefore becomes an absolute exemption, and I am not required to provide you with a public interest test.
Disclosure
Q1 - Over the past year the number of officers who were found to have broken the force's professional standards in their use of social media.
A1. 21 (twenty-one) 01/10/2022 to 30/09/2022
Further Information
Securing and maintaining the trust of the community is integral to the principle of policing by consent and to continue to do so, the MPS recognises that its staff must act with professionalism and integrity. The MPS treats each occasion when an allegation is made about the conduct of its staff extremely seriously and will fully investigate each incident to determine whether the conduct of that member of staff has breached the standards of professional behaviour. Where the conduct of staff is proven to have fallen below the standards of behaviour expected, the MPS will take robust action to ensure that its staff are appropriately disciplined and that lessons are learnt from each case. Any instance where the conduct of our staff is alleged to have fallen below the standards of behaviour expected is treated extremely seriously by the MPS.