Mobile phone thefts in London from April to July 2022

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.025758

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. Please could you tell me how many mobile phones were reported stolen in London from 01/04/2022 to 20/07/2022?

2. And also how many attempted mobile phone thefts were reported?

As well as a total numbers can you please breakdown the stats by:

3. London Borough of offence
4. Date of Offence
5. Moped/electric bike or electric scooter used in the theft?
6. If a suspect was caught for the offence?
7. If the phone was ever retrieved

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)&(3) Personal Information
Section 31(1)(a) Law Enforcement

Reason for decision

In respect of Question One (1), the MPS is able to disclose information held.

In respect of Questions Two (2), Three (3), Four (4), Five (5), Six (6) and Seven (7), the MPS is able to provide a partial disclosure of information.

Disclosure of all the information you have requested is likely to allow for the identification of a very small number of individuals as well enable individuals to ascertain if their crimes have gone undetected. Tis provides those who have undertaken criminal activities the knowledge as to whether the MPS is aware of their actions and may be seeking to locate certain individuals.

Constant adverse FOIA disclosure of crime related personal information erodes the trust and confidence the public has in the ability of the police to handling personal information relating to crime data in a sensitive and discreet manner. This in turn may lead to a chilling effect in terms of the erosion of trust in police resulting in an under-reporting of crime.

Whilst disclosure may not immediately identify the said individuals to the casual observer, there may be others who will know these small number of individuals you refer to or be able to self-identify themselves as the figures redacted are recent, extremely low and the crime very specific. Therefore, full disclosure would be placing new undisclosed personal information about individuals and suspects into the public domain. The MPS see no fair or lawful reason for such a disclosure, and therefore it would leave the MPS in breach of the general principles of data protection.
Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal 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.

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 not considered to be lawful as it contains:

• very recent, low level crime data regarding living individuals

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

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 is less likely to identify individuals and undermine policing and confidence in our handling of sensitive personal data.

Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that victims would not reasonably expect their crime data to be published in response to specific Freedom of Information Act request.

The disclosure provided today demonstrates accountability and transparency and is important to the MPS. The rationale for non-disclosure 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 disclosure of personal information within FOIA requests 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 -
The information withheld today constitutes 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.

Section 31(1)(a) & (b) – Law Enforcement - Full disclosure would enabling the public to try and further understand incidents regarding thefts and attempted thefts in localised areas and details (in this case regarding modes of transport) regarding those crimes that have occurred.

Law enforcement measures are put in place to protect the community that we serve. Other than the information already disclosed that you have been given access to today, any further disclosure of information held is exempt is exempt to protect policing tactics/ intelligence regarding recent crimes, disclosure of which would enable criminals to assess if individual crimes have gone unreported and undetected. The Public Interest is served by the disclosure today (and that already available online) without allowing for the identification of individuals.

Disclosure would undermine the public’s trust in the police to handling information regarding thefts sensitively. Full disclosure may lead to a underreporting and a decrease in contact with the police should the public fear constant adverse disclosures under FOIA will identify them or allow others to identify individuals. Under-reporting of crime is a real concern to the MPS and disclosure regarding specific incidents may lead to that chilling effect amongst the community and erode trust in the police, which would not be in the public interest.

Full disclosure would involve be releasing personal information into the public domain which would enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to try and map intelligence, strategies and tactics used by the MPS and other police services across the country if multiple requests are made with the specific breakdown you have requested.

Disclosure would undermine the public’s trust in the police of handling information regarding theft sensitively. Full disclosure is not in the public interest as it may lead to under-reporting and a decrease in contact with the police should the public fear constant adverse disclosures under FOIA that may identify them or allow others to identify individuals or assess if criminals actions have gone unreported..

Under reporting of crime is a real concern to the MPS and disclosure regarding specific incidents may lead to that chilling effect amongst the community and erode trust in the police, which would not be in the public interest.

The full disclosure of information would not, in the view of the MPS, greatly further the public’s understanding and instead could only be used to hinder law enforcement and crime prevention.

The strongest reason favouring full disclosure is the public interest in the public gaining the greatest possible understanding of local incidents.

The strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is ensuring public safety is not compromised (by disclosing information held for a policing purpose), that will aid individuals evading detection should disclosure decrease public trust in making contact with police.

On weighing up the competing interests, the MPS has determined that the public interest favours the application of this exemption.

This decision is reached on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public, but is what would be of greater good to the public if disclosed to the public as a whole. As advised, the Public Interest has been met to a large extent by the information already disclosed into the public domain that have had access to.

Disclosure

Please find attached a disclosure for your attention today.

Caveat for Data Disclosed Today

The MPS note Camden and Westminster’s figures are particularly high in the reporting of crime in these areas. These are highly populated areas with a high number of tourists and busy night life areas, which may be just some reasons that unfortunately add to high reporting levels.
Camden has a number of over-ground and underground stations which are accessed through main arterial routes within the BCU (Basic Command Unit). These ‘hotspot areas’ see some of the highest footfall for commuters within London at rush hours period both morning and late afternoon. As a result local Police and central policing asset patrol these particular areas as a priority.

Additional Information

The MPS Data & Stats link which provides information the MPS routinely disclose into the public domain which may be of interest to you.