Metadata related to covering-up of information related to child sex exploitation

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.028354

I note you seek access to the following information:

'please arrange for the case metadata to be sent.'

CLARIFICATION BELOW;
You have asked for clarification of my request for metadata relating to this case.

To help you, what is not required are copies of communications directly to and from ourselves, unless they had been annotated or passed to any other person.
The case metadata may include but not be limited to internal memos, briefings, communications with third parties, minutes of meetings ( if applicable ), etc.

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(2)(3) - Personal data

Reason for decision

Section 40(2)(3) - Personal data - When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. Section 40(3A)(a) states that public authorities will not disclose information which constitutes personal data and if the disclosure would contravene any of the Data Protection principles.

To disclose the emails without redaction would publicly reveal information about individuals which would contravene Data Protection principles. The Data Protection Act 2018 defines personal data as any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual. There are six data protection principles set out in section 34 of the DPA 2018 and under Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The first principle requires personal data to be processed in a ‘lawful and fair’ manner. The basis for determining what constitutes lawful and fair is outlined under section 35 of the DPA.

The names of Staff members
• Disclosing the requested information would provide greater detail into the communications relating to the internal review of a Freedom of Information request. The public have a legitimate interest in finding out what happens during an internal review and who is consulted with during the process. This would show how the request is handled, from its receipt, to the decision making process and finally culminating in an outcome.

• The legitimate interest in transparency and accountability would be further satisfied through the release of this information. It would foster public confidence in the request handling process.

• The police staff who form the email trail hold the rank of Band A and below. Staff of these ranks would not therefore, reasonably expect their names to be published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. In this regard, the public release of their personal data would be unexpected, unfair and distressing to the data subject(s) and could lead to unwanted and unsolicited intrusion from individuals interested in the specifics of their role, in relation to this internal review.

The names of external personnel
• Disclosing the names of external personnel would identify exactly who the MPS has communicated with from the (National Police Chiefs' Council) NPCC, in relation to this internal review.

• The legitimate interest in transparency would be further satisfied through the release of this information.

The NPCC provide advice and support on FOI issues to law enforcement agencies, encouraging FOI good practice. In the course of communications with the MPS emails are generated and we have disclosed that we have indeed had communications with the NPCC as an organisation, during this internal review.

However, we will not disclose the names of the specific individuals who have communicated with us, on behalf of the NPCC, as they have a legitimate expectation that the MPS would not publicly release and publish their names in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The MPS must consider how we process personal data and without the data subject’s explicit consent, the sharing of their personal data would be harmful, and cause alarm and distress to the data subject. I therefore find it justified to withhold the names of external staff that is contained

Disclosure

These searches successfully located the information relevant to your request. I have disclosed the located information to you in the document attached.

Please note, some data within the attached document is redacted. I have redacted the names of MPS staff and staff from an external organisation, so as not to contravene Data Protection principles.

This data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 40(2)(3) - Personal Information.