Questions in relation to corruption
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.028758
I note you seek access to the following information:
REQUEST 1:
What roles did (later) Commander Ray Adams hold between 1980 and 2020?
REQUEST 2:
Since Mark Rowley started his new role, has there been any attempt to restart an investigation into the alleged corruption that, allegedly, thwarted investigations into the deaths of Stephen Lawrence and Daniel Morgan?
REQUEST 3:
What powers, if any, does the Met have to address the well-provided lives of its former comrades should, heaven forfend, they be found guilty of anything, or does resignation normally signal the end of any enquiry?
REQUEST 4:
Are freemasonry and membership of the police force (mps or otherwise) still seen as compatible - and what steps are taken to test out whether police members are members of that organisation?
Decision
Firstly, with reference to your Request 3 and Request 4, I am pleased to inform you that we have located information of relevance and I have made the decision to disclose it to you. Please find this in the disclosure section of this response.
However, with regards to your Request 1 and Request 2, the MPS can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds any information as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Act does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions under the Act:
Section 40(5)(a)(i)(ii)(b)(i)(ii) – Personal Information
Section 30(3) – Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities
Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement
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).
Reason for decision
The MPS needs to be alert to requests for certain types of information, such as requests for information that may disclose or infer investigatory activity, including but not limited to, whether a criminal offence has been committed, lines of enquiry, and/or the circumstances or outcome of any police activity. If this information were held, it would fall within the class of information covered by Section 30(1)(a)(i), and a confirmation or denial that such information is or is not held would have a significant impact on law enforcement, which would fall within the class of information covered by Section 31(1)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the MPS regularly receives requests for information that, if held, could also infer personal data which falls within the class of information covered by Section 40(2)(3) of the Act.
A statement confirming or denying whether information is held in relation to your questions 1, and 2, and/or similar requests for information, would unfairly disclose or infer personal data thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the GDPR. Confirming or denying that any information is held would breach the first principle of the Data Protection Act 2018 in as much as personal information must be lawfully and fairly processed.
Additionally, confirming or denying whether information is held in relation to your question 2, could potentially undermine investigations and proceedings that the MPS has a duty to conduct. To confirm or deny whether the MPS has considered re-opening investigations into alleged corruption, or that any such investigations are currently being progressed, since Mark Rowley became the Commissioner of the MPS, would prejudice any current investigations that may be ongoing, and would also impact on any future investigations that may be being considered, or which could be considered, or conducted in the future.
Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND) - There is a need for consistency when neither confirming nor denying whether information is held so as to protect policing information and personal data.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance titled: ‘When to refuse to confirm or deny information is held’ states:
‘In certain circumstances, even confirming or denying that requested information is held can reveal information that falls under an exemption. A public authority may be able to use an exemption to refuse to confirm whether or not it holds information, if either confirming or denying would reveal exempt information in itself.
A neither confirm nor deny response is more likely to be needed for very specific requests than for more general or wide ranging requests.
It can be important to use a neither confirm nor deny response consistently, every time a certain type of information is requested, regardless of whether the information is actually held or not. For this reason public authorities need to be alert to the possibility of receiving future requests for the same type of information when handling very specific or detailed requests.’
‘There are situations where a public authority will need to use the neither confirm nor deny response consistently over a series of separate requests, regardless of whether it holds the requested information. This is to prevent refusing to confirm or deny being taken as an indication of whether information is held. Before complying with section 1(1)(a), public authorities should consider both whether any harm would arise from confirming that information is held and whether harm would arise from stating that no information is held. Otherwise, if the same (or same type of) requests were made on several occasions, a changing response could reveal whether information was held.’
Section 30(3) (NCND) - A public authority can apply Section 30(3) if the requested information - if it were held - would fall within the scope of the Section 30 exemption. If the requested information is held, the relevant subsection would be Section 30(1)(a)(i), which concerns information that is held at any time for the purpose of any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct, with a view to it being ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence.
Factors for complying with Section 1(1)(a) – Section 30 - There is a public interest in disclosure (i.e. a confirmation or denial statement) to the extent that it would enhance:
• The transparency and accountability of the MPS and its operations.
• Public awareness and debate.
• Public confidence in investigative processes and the police service.
The public have a right to expect transparency and accountability in relation to the use of public funds. Confirming or denying that information relevant to your request is held would inform the public about investigations that public funds are being spent on.
There is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the MPS is appropriately and effectively dealing with crime. Greater transparency, in the form of a confirmation or denial statement, could promote public confidence in the relevant investigative processes, in the prevention and detection of crime, and in the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) – Section 30 - By its very nature, any information held relating to investigations is sensitive in nature.
Under the Act there is a requirement to comply with Section 1(1)(a) and confirm whether or not information is held, however in some cases, it is that confirmation or not, which could disclose facts harmful to policing and in such cases the MPS takes advantage of its ability under the FOI legislation, to, where appropriate, neither confirm nor deny whether the information requested is or is not held.
The exemption under Section 30 is concerned with preserving the safe space that can be critical to the investigation and prosecution process. It is designed to protect the independence of the judicial and prosecution process by preserving the criminal court as the sole forum for the determination of guilt.
The MPS will never disclose information, including via a confirmation or denial statement, which could identify sensitive investigative activity and therefore undermine their investigations. To do so would hinder the prevention and detection of crime, as well as prejudice the MPS's ability to fairly conduct investigations. Confirming or denying that information is held would be harmful to any investigations, should they be unsolved at this time.
Confirming or not that the requested information is held would identify our lines of enquiry, which has the potential to cause any ongoing investigation to collapse, as well as undermine the confidence in the police. Should the public be given such information, suspects or potential suspects could be alerted as to the extent of police activity. As investigations into alleged corruption would be likely to be covert in nature confirming or denying that any such investigative activity is taking place, or is being considered, would frustrate investigations by alerting any suspects to prior notice of police activity, thus helping them to evade justice.
Furthermore, the control of information held for the purpose of an investigation is important to the effective conduct of an investigation. The College of Policing website contains specific information relating to investigations and communications strategies and states:
‘The way in which investigators manage communications will have a significant effect on the investigation they are conducting. The main purpose of this strategy is to communicate or receive information which assists investigators to progress their enquiries. This can be achieved through internal communications by using colleagues and partners within the criminal justice system and through external communications by using partner agencies and community networks.’
Further to this, there is therefore a real risk that confirming or denying the requested information would hinder or disrupt any current or future investigative process, and as such it would not be in the public interest to do so. The control of information held for the purpose of an investigation is also relevant in relation to the analysis of evidence. Withholding information from the public enables the police to effectively filter new information and target resources efficiently. For example, when individuals supply information to the police, greater weight may be given to sources and details that corroborate information that is not in the public domain or multiple independent sources that appear to be consistent.
The MPS also has a duty of confidence to victims, informants and suspects. Consequently, the disclosure of information relating to investigations, including a confirmation or denial statement, is likely to undermine trust in the MPS, discourage individuals from assisting the police and impair investigations and/or law enforcement functions. This would ultimately have a negative effect upon the analysis and flow of information to the police.
Modern-day policing is intelligence led, and the MPS heavily rely upon victims, witnesses and informants coming forward to provide evidence. The MPS also routinely shares information with other law enforcement agencies as part of our investigative processes. To confirm or not the specific detail outlined in your request would undermine the partnership approach to investigations and law enforcement, and therefore hinder the prevention and detection of crime.
Confirming or not that information is held would prejudice how investigations are carried out in the future by revealing investigative activity. The MPS has to be mindful of future or ongoing investigations which may be occurring. Irrespective of whether information is or is not held, if held it would be held solely for the purpose of investigating crimes and there is therefore a risk that disclosing whether or not the requested information is held could hinder any future investigative process. As a confirmation or denial statement is likely to disrupt any investigative process, it would not be in the public interest to do so.
Disclosures under FOI are disclosures to the world, not just to the individual making the request. Every effort should be made to release information under the FOIA, however, whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, if we were to confirm that information is held, or confirm that no information is held, this would provide information about the status of police investigations and intelligence which would be of use to individuals who could use it to disrupt any police investigation.
if a disclosure was made (in this case by confirming or denying information was held) it would suggest to members of the public that if reporting a crime to police, information about their report could be released to the public at large under FOI at any given time. This fear that information could be made publically known at any time could result in people not engaging with the police and failing to report crime to the police which ultimately undermines law enforcement.
Any disclosure of information, if held, which allows the perpetrator of a crime to have knowledge of whether their crime had been detected, or not, cannot be in the public interest. This could ultimately allow individuals to evade capture and therefore hinder the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. Similarly, any disclosure of information, if held, could jeopardise an individual’s right to a fair trial.
Furthermore were we to confirm or deny that information is held, this would, by a process of elimination, enable criminals to identify what level of policing activity is likely to take place and what tactics may or may not be used. Any such disclosure would be likely to impact not only on any investigations taking place now, but also on future investigations, or operations, as it would enable targeted individuals/groups to become surveillance aware, which would help subjects avoid detection, and inhibit the prevention and detection of crime. This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and would amount to a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.
Confirming or denying that information is held, which relates to your request, would compromise law enforcement and hinder the prevention and detection of crime.
Disclosing that an investigation into a specific type of offence is or is not being conducted, would, in general, allow criminals to be aware of whether any crime perpetrated had been reported and could thus allow them to evade prosecution and continue committing offences. Therefore, the ability of the MPS to operate effectively and efficiently would directly be affected as this information, if held, could be manipulated by those with criminal intent to operate in those areas. This would subsequently require a full review, which would require additional resources and would add to the cost to the public purse.
The MPS has a duty to conduct investigations with a view to it being ascertained whether an offence has taken place, whether a person should be charged with an offence, or whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it. Consequently the MPS as a public authority is entitled to rely upon Section 30(3) to the extent that the requested information, if held, could have been held at any time for the purpose of such investigations.
In the circumstances of your request, I have determined that the balance of the public interest favours neither confirming nor denying that relevant information is or is not held. To do otherwise could prejudice investigations and proceedings, as well as law enforcement, i.e. the prevention and detection of crime and/or the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.
As outlined within the ‘Reasons for Decision’ section earlier in this response, it is necessary to use NCND exemptions consistently when a certain type of information is requested, regardless of whether the requested information is held or not. Consequently, this response should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that would meet your request does or does not exist. The NCND stance is consistently taken in order to protect the interests of both individuals and the police service, now and in the future.
I consider that the benefit that would result from issuing a confirmation or denial response does not outweigh the considerations favouring the neither confirm nor deny response in this case. It is because of this that I feel the balance falls in favour of the maintenance of this stance, and why these exemptions are engaged and made out in this case. This decision is based on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public, but what would be of greater good to the community as a whole.
Section 40(5A)&(5B)(a)(i) – Personal Information - A confirmation or denial statement in relation to your request may in the circumstances imply, infer or disclose personal data relating to living individuals who are captured by the scope of your request.
Section 40 of the Act is designed to address information that is covered by the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). Under Section 40(5B), the MPS is not required to confirm whether information is held if that confirmation or denial could contravene any of the Data Protection Principles.
Where an individual is requesting third party personal data the MPS must ensure that any action taken adheres to the principles of the DPA and the General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (GDPR). To clarify, the Freedom of Information Act only allows disclosure of personal data if that disclosure would be compliant with the principles for processing personal data. These principles are outlined under Section 34 of the DPA and under Article 5 of the GDPR.
A confirmation or denial statement in relation to whether the MPS hold information in relation to an investigation could in the circumstances:
• Constitute the disclosure of sensitive personal data.
• Breach the First Data Protection Principle which relates to the lawful and fair processing of personal data.
• Breach the right to privacy afforded to individuals under the DPA and the GDPR.
The ICO guidance titled ‘Personal information’ indicates that the following factors are relevant when assessing whether a disclosure under FOIA would be fair:
• Whether the information is sensitive personal data;
• The possible consequences of disclosure on the individual;
• The reasonable expectations of the individual, taking into account:
▪ Their expectations both at the time the information was collected and at the time of the request.
▪ The nature of the information itself.
▪ The circumstances in which the information was obtained.
▪ Whether the information has been or remains in the public domain.
▪ The FOIA principles of transparency and accountability.
• Any legitimate interests in the public having access to the information and the balance between these and the rights and freedoms of the individuals who are the data subjects.
In this instance, for the reasons outlined above, I have concluded that confirming or denying whether information is held would contravene the First Data Protection Principle, relating to the lawful and fair processing of personal data. Furthermore in the circumstances of your request, none of the lawful bases for processing personal data as set out in Article 6 of the GDPR would be met in relation to confirming or denying whether or not the information that you have requested is held.
Due to the need for consistency when applying exemptions relating to the duty to confirm or deny, a confirmation or denial statement would also impair the ability of the MPS to protect personal data in response to similar requests which may have similar consequences for the privacy of individuals.
It is also legitimate for the MPS to consider the effect of a confirmation or denial statement in the context of requests of a similar nature that may be received by the MPS at a later date. Such a statement may disclose personal data and/or impair the ability of the MPS to protect personal data in relation to similar requests for information in the future by undermining the use of NCND exemptions. This is due to the information that would be disclosed by such a statement and/or a pattern of such statements.
With regard to Section 40, please bear in mind that the changes brought about by the GDPR apply when considering whether the use of NCND is appropriate inasmuch as determining that confirmation or denial would be lawful and fair.
Please see the disclosure section below for information that has been located and assessed as suitable for disclosure.
Disclosure
Q3 - What powers, if any, does the Met have to address the well-provided lives of its former comrades should, heaven forfend, they be found guilty of anything, or does resignation normally signal the end of any enquiry?
Complaints and conduct matters relating to the conduct of a person who has ceased to be a person serving with the police is specifically dealt with within the Police Complaints and Misconduct Regulations 2020.
Regulation 42 (1)(2) states:
(1) Where a complaint or conduct matter relates to the conduct of a person who has ceased to be a person serving with the police since the time of the conduct and on or after 15th December 2017, the provisions of Part 2 of the 2002 Act and these Regulations apply—
(a) as if the person were still serving in the position in which the person last served, and
(b) with the modifications to Part 2 of the 2002 Act and to these Regulations set out in Schedule 2 to these Regulations.
(2) Where a complaint or conduct matter relates to the conduct of a person who has ceased to be a person serving with the police since the time of the conduct and before 15th December 2017, the provisions of Part 2 of the 2002 Act apply in relation to such a person as if they did not include any requirement to determine whether disciplinary proceedings or performance proceedings should be brought against a person whose conduct is the subject-matter of a report.
In these Regulations—“the 2002 Act” means the Police Reform Act 2002
The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020
Home Office Guidance on the Conduct, Efficiency and Effectiveness: Statutory Guidance on Professional Standards, Performance and Integrity in Policing - also has a whole chapter dedicated to the application of former officer regulations at Section 6. Chapter 20. To assist a link has been provided below:
Home Office Statutory Guidance
Q4 - Are freemasonry and membership of the police force (MPS or otherwise) still seen as compatible - and what steps are taken to test out whether police members are members of that organisation?
Each police force determines compatibility and associations that may be inappropriate with national guidance provided by the College of Policing. The MPS governs this through a Declarable Association Policy. This sets out relationships with individuals and professions which must be ‘declared’ to ensure transparency and public confidence.
The current policy does not specifically require Freemasonry to be declared. However, it does make clear that there is a general obligation to disclose in any ‘circumstances where there is a potential conflict of interest and the relationship.’
FURTHER INFORMATION
There have been widely reported investigations, reviews and public or independent inquiries into both the cases your request relates to, and many of these reviews and inquiries have published findings, to which the MPS has publically responded.
The MPS takes police corruption extremely seriously and since Sir Mark Rowley started as the Commissioner he has expanded the corruption capability of the MPS to identify and take action against corruption in the MPS. If any new information into alleged corruption was brought to the attention of the MPS linked to either of these two cases, or any other matter, that information would be assessed and acted upon accordingly.
Please note that NCND is applied equally both to cases where information is held, and those where no information is held. It is important that this approach is maintained. The application of NCND in this case should therefore not be taken as conclusive evidence that any further information (other than that disclosed to you), that would meet your request, exists or does not exist.