Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.028360
I note you seek access to the following information:
Please can I obtain a Documented Risk Assessment for Police Motorcycle Rider
Clarification -
Roads & Transport Policing Command would seem a logical place to start. I see that there is also Traffic OCU – but this may fall under Roads & Transport Policing Command. Also, there is Safer Transport Command.
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 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)(a)(b)(3A)(a)(i)(ii)(b) – Personal Information
Reason for decision
The names of assessing officers have been removed from the documents as this information would identify individuals and would release information about those individuals into the public domain, therefore Section 40(2)(3) of the Act has been applied to refuse disclosure.
Anything that could potentially identify a living individual constitutes personal data which would, if released, be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.
The individuals concerned would have no reason to believe that the MPS would disclose information personal to them in response to a Freedom of Information request, and to do so would be unlawful and unfair.
Additionally, the telephone number for RTC Grip has been redacted from the document titled ‘RTPC 21 Patrol Police Vehicle’. This is because RTC Grip is an operational unit and releasing the telephone number for that unit into the public domain could lead to non-operational calls being made to that number by members of the public. This would affect our ability to fulfil our core function of law enforcement as in the event that members of the public started to use that telephone number to call police, or to make nuisance telephone calls to that number, officers would need to be redeployed from other duties to monitor the number.
Furthermore, if the number was constantly in use operational units would be unable to get through to that unit for urgent law enforcement matters. Disclosure would therefore prejudice law enforcement and for this reason Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Act has also been applied to refuse disclosure in this case.
Section 31(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement - The MPS is charged with enforcing the law and preventing and detecting crime. Any information released under the Act which would impact on this would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The redacted telephone number is for an operational unit and therefore needs to be kept free for operational matters. If the telephone number was released into the public domain members of the public could use to call police for other matters and individuals wishing to cause disruption could make nuisance calls to the number which would impact on operational policing. As outlined in the reasons for decision section, if the telephone number was released into the public domain officers would need to be re-deployed from other units to monitor the telephone number.
Furthermore, if the number was constantly in use operational officers would be unable to contact the relevant department for operational matters. This could also lead to us having to change the number which would have a cost implication on the public purse, due to the cost of changing the number, but also in staff time to disseminate the new number across the MPS.
Release would have the effect of compromising law enforcement processes and would also hinder the ability of the MPS to fulfil its primary aim of enforcing the law and protecting the public.
Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational information into the public domain which would enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to disrupt operational policing.
The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built and the police have a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those responsible for committing crime or those that plan to commit crime. To disclose information which could assist a criminal has the potential to undermine the operational integrity of the MPS. There is also a duty of care to the public at large, and public safety is our main concern. Any disclosure of information that would be likely to negatively impact on this can never be seen to be in the wider public interest.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that the delivery of law enforcement is appropriate and balanced, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.
It is our opinion therefore that for these reasons the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.
Section 40(2)&(3)(a)(i) - Personal Information - Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would identify any living individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). I have applied this exemption in that the disclosure of the names of assessing officers would cause a living person's identity to be revealed which would be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.
The Data Protection Act 2018 (UK) regulates the processing of personal data about living individuals in the UK and sets out the responsibilities of data controllers when processing personal data as well as a number of rights for individuals, including rights of access to their information.
The eight principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully.
In reaching my decision I have in each case, given due regard to Condition one and six of Schedule 2 of the DPA.
Condition one of the DPA requires that consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that consideration is given to whether disclosure would constitute legitimate processing of that data. Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is present or would likely be received to release this information.
The exemption provided under section 40 becomes absolute and class based in cases where disclosure would contravene the principles of the Data Protection Act. Therefore I am not required to provide a prejudice test or public interest test.
Disclosure
Please find attached the following documents:
• REDACTED RTPC 10 FAST ROAD
• REDACTED RTPC 19 MOTORCYCLE
• REDACTED RTPC 20 OBSERVED
• REDACTED RTPC 21 PATROL POLICE VEHICLE
As outlined above, these documents have been redacted.