Arrests at royal residences from 2018 to 2022

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.027962

I note you seek access to the following information:

How many arrests were made outside Buckingham Palace in the last five calendar years? (2018-2022).
Please break it down by calendar year.
If possible, please provide what the arrests were for.

How many arrests were made at Kensington Palace in the last five calendar years? (2018-2022).
Please break it down by calendar year.
If possible, please provide what the arrests were for.

How many arrests were made at Clarence House in the last five calendar years? (2018-2022).
Please break it down by calendar year.
If possible, please provide what the arrests were for.

How many arrests were made at St James' Palace in the last five calendar years? (2018-2022).
Please break it down by calendar year.
If possible, please provide what the arrests were for.

You clarified the request on 09/02/2023 to confirm that you were seeking data for arrests where Buckingham Palace appears in the Place of Arrest field, and further clarified on 21/02/23 that this also applied to the other locations specified in your request.

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).

In addition, the MPS can neither confirm or deny whether it holds any further information relating to this request as the duty in Section 1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) does not apply by virtue of the following exemption:

Section 30(3) – Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities
Section 40(5) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 30 - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities - To confirm or deny the existence of any further information relating to arrests at specific locations, would be commenting on incidents which might or might not form part of an ongoing investigation or court process. This would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. The MPS would not wish to confirm or deny that any further data is held relating to an offence that is subject to an ongoing investigation or court proceedings, as this would clearly undermine the law enforcement and investigative process.

Confirmation or denial would highlight how many investigations could be ongoing and alert possible offenders to the focus of police activity and the importance that might be placed on this area of crime. Any subsequent enquiries or investigations could therefore be compromised.

The most persuasive reasons for confirming or denying any further information is held would be greater assurance to the public that any reported incidents and crimes to the police are investigated thoroughly and appropriate arrest made. It would also indicate the amount of crime being reported in this area.

However, this needs to be weighed against the strongest negative reason, which, in this case, is to confirm or deny any further information is held would compromise and undermine the MPS’ law enforcement capabilities in its ability to prevent and detect crime. The effectiveness of any ongoing investigations or court proceedings may be compromised as potential offenders would be able to identify the focus of police activity. They could then take steps to disrupt investigations and evade prosecution, which could ultimately lead to the need for more police resources.

Therefore, it is our opinion, after weighing up the competing interests, that the balance test favours neither confirmation nor denial.

Section 40(5A)&(5B)(a)(i) - Personal information - is designed to address information that is covered by the Data Protection Act 2018.

Under section 40(5), the MPS is not required to comply with the requirements of section 1(1) (a) i.e. the duty to inform the applicant whether or not the information is held.

In most cases Personal Data is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as I will explain below.

To confirm or deny whether personal information exists could publicly reveal information about an identifiable individual or individuals, thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2018.

Where an individual is requesting his or her own personal data the information is always exempt. Such information can be requested under other legislation.
Where an individual is requesting third party personal data the MPS must ensure that any action taken adheres to the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the 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 2018 and under Article 5 of the GDPR.

Section 40 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in this case.

Disclosure

Please find below the report relevant to your request.

I would like to draw your attention to the Notes page of this report which contains some important points relating to the data provided. Please note that, due to the nature of the search parameters, the arrests include locations recorded as ‘outside’ or ‘near’ the specified residences which may therefore have not occurred within the specified buildings or their grounds.

Please also note that the data shows the main reason provided on the record of an arrest. A detainee may be arrested for more than one offence and/or subsequently investigated for other offences.