High Profile report

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.025915

I note you seek access to the following information:

Please could you send me a copy of the most recent High Profile report?

I understand that you may need to make redactions, but I remind you that time taken for redactions does not normally count towards the cost exemption

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 S40(2) & S40(3A)(a) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because, under Freedom of Information, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world and not just to one individual.

Section 40 is an absolute and class-based exemption and if a request for information relates to third parties, it is absolute under Section 40(2) if disclosure would breach any of the data protection principles. There is therefore no requirement to either evidence harm in disclosure or conduct a public interest test.

Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information - 40(2)(a)(b) of the Act 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 (UK 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 UK GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

The report contains the names of living individuals, including staff members.

Some individual members of the public may feel there is to some degree a legitimate interest in the disclosure of the redacted personal information upon request.

However, the rationale for redacting information is that disclosure is not necessary to satisfy the legitimate interest in disclosure and/or may cause unwarranted harm to one or more data subjects.

Consequently, it would be disproportionate to disclose the redacted information.

Additionally there is not an overwhelming legitimate interest of full disclosure in consideration that the remaining information in the documents has been disclosed today, which discloses the actual High Profile questions (bar certain personal information).

Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that particularly in consideration of staff members, and in the context of this report, they do not hold roles where they would reasonably expect their names to be continually published in response to specific Freedom of Information Act request relating to requests that at a given point in time may be allocated to them. Additionally, the functions that they performed within these reports were not that of a decision maker.

The disclosure provided today demonstrates accountability and transparency and is important to the MPS. The rationale for non-disclosure of a staff members name is based on the fact there is little necessity to disclose this personal information to meet a legitimate interest and that disclosure may cause unwarranted harm in its disclosure to the individuals to which the data refers. Consequently, it would be disproportionate to disclose the redacted information.

I have not therefore identified a strong legitimate interest that would be satisfied in disclosing the redacted personal data or any personal data in requests, in response to this request for information.

The public release of names of MPS employees or all personal information within FOIA requests, in connection with the High Profile Report would not satisfy any identifiable legitimate interest.

Consequently and as explained above, it would be disproportionate to disclose the redacted information.

Personal Criminal Offence Data - FOIA Case reference number 22/25895 contains criminal offence related personal data relating to living persons that can be identified. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

a. The Information Commissioner (the ombudsman for the Act) guidance on the release of personal criminal offence data under the Act states:

‘Due to its sensitivity, the conditions for processing criminal offence data are very restrictive and generally concern specific, stated purposes. Consequently, only two are relevant to allow you to lawfully disclose under FOIA or the EIR. They are similar to those identified above for special category data. These are:

• consent from the data subject; or
• the processing relates to personal data which has clearly been made public by the individual concerned.

If a relevant condition cannot be met, you must not disclose the information as disclosure would be unlawful and therefore in contravention of principle (a).’

The conditions required to release personal criminal offence data are not present in this case. The release of the requested personal data does not accordingly satisfy a legitimate interest and cannot be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

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 find the attached disclosure for your information.

Please note there is an administrative error in the spreadsheet for entry that has a case reference of 01/FOI/22/025899. This entry should have been recorded as ‘Conduct related’ not than ‘SO – related’.