Information about officers from Parliamentary Diplomatic Protection Unit (PaDP) from 2013 to 2022

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.028781

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. How many officers from the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Unit have been suspended in each of the past ten years, and also what for?
2. How many officers from the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Unit have been arrested in each of the past ten years, and also what for?
3. How many officers from the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Unit have been charged in each of the past ten years, and also what for?
4. How many officers from the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Unit have faced a misconduct investigation in the past ten years, what was it for, and what was the outcome?
5. How many officers from the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Unit have been the subject of a recorded complaint/allegation in the past ten years, what was it for and what was the outcome?

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 - Personal information

Reason for decision

To provide annual breakdowns of the number of officers suspended, arrested or charged, and the outcome of formal sanctions following a complaint/allegation, where figures are low, could result in an individual’s identification. This would consitute a breach of data protection and the disclosure of personal information. As such Section 40(2)(3) of the Act is engaged

Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would reveal personal information relating to any living individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). I have applied this exemption in that additional details of suspensions, arrests and charges would constitute personal data which, if released, would be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.

The six 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. I consider that the release of this information would constitute personal data and would be unfair as the person(s) concerned would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly available.

In reaching my decision, I have, in each case, given due regard to the condition at Article 6(1) (a) and 6(1) (e) of the GDPR. Condition one of the GDPR requires that consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that consideration is given to performance of a public task in the public interest.

This exemption is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is applied, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to consider whether release of information is in the public interest or demonstrate what harm would result from disclosure.

Disclosure

Please see the attached report for data relating to your request.

I would draw your attention to the Notes page of this report which includes some important caveats regarding the data provided.