Territorial Support Group (TSG) firearms capability

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.028194

I note you seek access to the following information:

I am writing to you to gain more information regarding your previous Territorial Support Group Firearms capability, I am aware this is no longer operational but I wish to seek answers to specific questions, due to this no longer being operational I do hope you can answer all questions.

Q1) When TSG was operational in a firearms capacity what vehicles did they use? (ARV's/TSG Carriers etc)

Q2) When was TSG put on shift as firearms? (specific days/CT Level etc)

Q3) Did a specific rank have to be operational when TSG was in a firearms capacity?

Q4) What was the callsign used? (I was told "Uniform Xray") can you confirm/deny this please. if Uniform Xray was not the callsign please provide the callsign used when TSG was operational as firearms.

Q5) Please provide a more in-depth description as to what TSG did when in a firearms capacity

Q6) Please provide any documents in relating to the TSGs firearms capability.

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 31(3) Law Enforcement

Also the Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information that you requested within Question 4 as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

Reason for decision

Q4 - What was the callsign used? (I was told "Uniform Xray") can you confirm/deny this please. if Uniform Xray was not the callsign please provide the callsign used when TSG was operational as firearms.

Q4 - Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement - Any release under FOIA is a disclosure to the world, not just to the individual making the request. To confirm or not that information is held pertinent to this request would reveal whether or not call signs were used, and specifically what call signs were used if any. The public expect police forces to use all powers and tactics available to them to prevent and detect crime or disorder and maintain public safety. In this case, revealing whether or not information is or isn’t held would place the MPS in a vulnerable position as confirmation or denial could cause harm.

The impact of providing information under FOI which aids in identifying whether or not the MPS used Uniform Xray as a callsign when TSG was operational as firearms, and if not what call sign was used, would provide those intent on committing criminal or terrorist acts with valuable information.

By confirming or denying whether any further information is held would mean that law enforcement would be compromised, which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime.

The MPS is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. The ability to protect uphold and protect law enforcement capabilities within the country is of paramount importance and the MPS will not divulge whether any or information is or is not held if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine law enforcement capabilities due to adverse disclosure. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, providing assurance that the MPS is appropriately making use of public funds, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding law enforcement methodology and capabilities.

The strongest reason favouring confirming whether the information is held is the provision of insight into call signs used. The strongest reason favouring neither confirming nor denying whether information is held is to ensure law enforcement capabilities and methodology (whether or not used in this instance) are not undermined by an adverse confirmation or denial under FOIA.

Please note this response should not be taken to as an indication of whether or not the requested information is held.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, public authorities were required to confirm whether or not any of the requested information is held. However there are occasions where confirming or denying whether information is held can, in itself, be harmful. The legislation provides exemptions which allow us to issue a neither confirm nor deny (NCND) response where this is the case.

Q5 - Please provide a more in-depth description as to what TSG did when in a firearms capacity
Q6 - Please provide any documents in relating to the TSGs firearms capability.

Section 31(1) (a) (b) of the Act, which governs Law Enforcement, is therefore engaged in respect of these questions of your request.

To disclose this information would be likely to provide enough information for individuals (or groups of individuals) with criminal or malicious intent to disrupt our ability to fulfil our basic law enforcement functions. Individuals could use this information to hinder our ability to deploy resources safely and efficiently.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Act, which governs Law Enforcement, is therefore engaged in respect of your request.

As the Section 31 exemption is prejudice based and qualified, I am required to provide you with a harm and public interest test. Please find these in the legal annex below together with further information in relation to the cited exemption.

We do not release the in-depth information relating to the functions of certain units or teams. Persons with hostile intent could use information to either compromise or interfere with the police response ability; additionally this knowledge could cause specific sites to become higher value targets and be subject to increased risk of criminal or terrorist threats.

The release of the requested information within question 5 and 6 would reveal tactical capability and would place the MPS at a tactical disadvantage as outlined in the harm above. It cannot be in the public interest to disclose information which would undermine our ability to prevent and detect crime and bring offenders to justice. As detailed within the 'harm', this would be a valuable asset to individuals and/or organisations wishing to commit crimes. Disclosure would disrupt the deployment of units and officers to any crime which, in turn, would enable offenders to destroy evidence and evade apprehension.

I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure. I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure.

Disclosure

Q1 - When TSG was operational in a firearms capacity what vehicles did they use? (ARV's/TSG Carriers etc)

TSG Marked Carriers.

Q2 - When was TSG put on shift as firearms? (specific days/CT Level etc)

TSG provided a number of armed patrols for a period of time following a number of terrorist attacks in 2017.

Q3 - Did a specific rank have to be operational when TSG was in a firearms capacity?

Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs) within the TSG were made up of Constables, Sergeants and Inspector.