Not fully deployable officers and those suspended or on restricted duties

 

I note you seek access to the following information:

 

The Times: 

“Britain’s most senior police chief has called for more power to sack underperforming officers after revealing that one in ten are unable to do their jobs fully because of performance and health issues. 

 

Sir Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, hit out at the bureaucratic process to remove officers and public sector reluctance to dismiss workers who did not meet expectations. 

 

Some 3,000 Met officers are not fully deployable because of performance concerns, mental health or physical issues. Another 500 are on restricted duties or suspended because they have been accused of serious misconduct.”  

 

I seek information relating to the third paragraph that begins, “Some 3,000 Met officers...” (I do not have full access to the article as it is behind a paywall).  

 

I want the figures stated by Sir Mark broken down in as much detail as your records permit to reveal why so many Met officers are “not fully deployable”.  

 

1. Please break down the figure of approximately 3,000 to reveal how many officers are not fully deployable because of (i) performance concerns; (ii) physical issues and (iii) mental health issues.  

 

2. Please further break down the figures for (i) performance concerns and 

(ii) physical issues to reveal the reasons recorded -  100 officers with X performance concerns and 100 with Y etc. 

 

3. Please also break down the figure of 500 (as granular as your records permit) to show the serious misconduct they have been accused of?  

 

4. I also seek information on the duration these 3,000 or so officers have not been fully deployable. If you hold information that breaks down the time they have not been fully deployable, please provide it. I have in mind a report showing how many of them have not been fully deployable for at least one month, three months, six months etc. 

 

5. Finally, please provide raw statistical data on the 100 officers who have not been fully deployable for the longest time. I have in mind two columns. Column 1 includes the numbers 1 to 20, and column 2 includes a time period adjacent to each number.”

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)(3A)(a) – Personal Information 

 

 

Some of the information requested in question two, which asks for a breakdown of the reasons behind why the 3000 officers are not fully deployable, cannot be disclosed. The low numbers could lead to the identification of those individuals – revealing personal, biographical health information about them. This would be exempt in accordance with Section 40 of the Act – personal information.

 

The same issue arises with question three; a breakdown of the number of those restricted / suspended for each offence type has been provided, as has a list of the relevant descriptions. However, to breakdown the figures for each of the individual descriptions would increase the change of identification and is therefore exempt.

 

In addition, in relation to question five, the exact length of time of each of these 100 officers has also not been disclosed.  Instead the times have been grouped to again reduce the possibility of identifying the individuals involved.  Section 40 is again applicable here.

 

Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information - Data disclosed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act is disclosed to the world, and not just to the individual requesting the information.  This is best demonstrated by the FOI disclosures on the Disclosure Log section of the MPS website:

 

You have requested some low level data relating to individuals’ health and sickness and discipline.  This level of information is not suitable for public consumption.  Should the MPS publish data at the level requested, it would be at a level that would make the identification of these individuals extremely possible.  To produce and publish sensitive health and misconduct related information at a level that would identify the involved parties would not be lawful, fair or in line with our processing commitments.  Thus, disclosure of the information at record level is exempt in accordance with section 40(2)(3A)(a) of the Act.  

 

Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is Personal Data.  The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption, referred to above.  

 

The information sought under your Freedom of Information request is at such a level that, if disclosed, would provide enough detail to identify the individuals involved.

 

When looking at disclosing the requested information, I have considered other pieces of guidance, including the ICO’s guidance titled ‘Crime mapping and geo-spatial crime data: privacy and transparency’, which examines a number of issues relating to the disclosure of statistical data.  

 

This guidance suggests that the following factors are relevant in relation to ensuring that the publication of crime maps (and essentially therefore low level, potentially identifying personal data) comply with the Data Protection Act 2018:

• The granularity of the crime-map or data,

• The regularity of data uploads,

• The sensitivity of the crime,

• The information recorded on the map,

• The availability of other sources of information and,

• The effect on victims and others.

 

As the information you have requested is not directly relating to the publication of crime maps, I have, when looking at the data, considered the following, broadly equivalent factors when making my decision:

• The granularity of the data

• The availability of other sources of information

• The effect on the individuals in question.

 

It is often believed that statistical information, even if detailed, is unlikely to allow anyone to actually identify those involved as the data is ‘too abstract’ and ‘there would be no way of knowing who these people were’ for example.  However, when considering identifiability, we have to assume that we are not looking just at the means reasonably likely to be used by the ordinary man in the street, but also the means that are likely to be used by a determined person (or a ‘motivated intruder’) with a particular reason to want to identify individuals.  Examples would include investigative journalists, estranged partners, stalkers, to name but a few.

 

If this level of data was to be disclosed, it could be pieced together with information already known by individuals or already in the public domain in order to identify the individuals involved.  To disclose all the information requested may allow individuals to ascertain or infer that a specific illness / case relates to a particular individual.  This would be unfair to those involved.

 

Considering this, I believe disclosing low level data in the format requested would definitely enable motivated individuals to identify those involved.  We must also consider the understandable level of interest in this subject at the moment, and the fact that people would be likely to be more motivated to look into these cases and identify those concerned.

 

Therefore, where the request is seeking information that would essentially allow access to third party personal data (such as in this case) the Section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.  

 

In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption, the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3(A), 3(B) and 4(A) of the Data Protection Act 2018.  

 

The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.

 

There are six Data Protection principles specified within Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

 

 

 

In the article referred to above, Sir Mark Rowley broke down the figures as 3,000 who were not fully deployable for health related reasons and 500 officers on misconduct related restrictions; therefore the actual number at that time was closer to 3,500.  These are two very distinct reasons where officers may not be fully deployable.  The 3,000 figure was rounded up from the table below:

Adjusted Duties	Recoup	Sickness	Total
1551	581	866	2998

224 of the 866 off for ‘sickness’ were off with mental ill health.

 

Please note, the following definitions may assist you in understanding the data provided:

 

Recoup Definition - Recuperative duties refers to a short term temporary work period that is allocated to you if you cannot complete your normal duties undertaken as part of your role or if you are falling short of full deployment following an injury, accident, illness or medical incident. The temporary work period allows individuals to maximise their deployment at their current capability whilst enabling them to recover and return to full duties.

 

Adjusted Duties Definition - Adjusted duties are long term work adjustments that are implemented for you if you are unable to complete normal duties in the workplace. Longer term adjustments are made to overcome your barriers at work. There is an understanding that if you are on adjusted duties may need long term or permanent reasonable workplace adjustments. If you are on adjusted duties you must be working on a regular basis and be working the full number of hours for which you are paid. Adjusted duties shows an intention to keep you in employment at the Met in a meaningful policing role.

 

 

The table shows all of the sickness reasons; the ones ‘withheld’ are due to low numbers that cannot be published.  This table does not related to the 500 that have misconduct restrictions.  Details of those can be found under ‘question three’.

Cardiac/ Circulatory or Metabolic	Covid19	Digestive Disorder	Ear/ Eye	Genito-Urinary/ Gynaecological	Headache/ Migraine	Infectious Diseases	Miscellaneous	Musculo-Skeletal	Nervous System Disorders	Mental ill health	Respiratory	Skin	Unknown
17	108	75	27	Withheld	Withheld	Withheld	164	118	Withheld	224	30	Withheld	94

 

Please find below the relevant dataset regarding officers who are currently restricted / suspended, as covered by your request.  Please note, the figures differ slightly to those quoted by Sir Mark Rowley in the article in question, as they provide a current snap shot in time.  

 

Please note, this is the most detailed level of breakdown that can be provided due to low numbers and the increased risk of identification.  Offences have been provided under generic descriptions, and a list of the standards of professional behaviour which are alleged to have been breached have been provided.  However, the number of correlating officers has not been broken down.  Where no breakdown has been provided, no further breakdown is available.

	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Number of officers	558	97	655

 

Please note that the allegation breakdown figures provided below are significantly higher than the number of officers.  This is because officers can face multiple allegations.

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
2012 Regulations	29	6	35

Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged to have been breached:

 

Authority, Respect and Courtesy

Confidentiality

Duties and Responsibilities

Fitness for Duty

Honesty and Integrity

Improper disclosure of information

Oppressive conduct or harassment

Orders and Instructions

Other neglect or failure in duty

Serious non-sexual assault

Traffic irregularity

 

More details about these can be found in the Colllege of Policing - Code of Ethics

 

In relation to the following standards of behaviour referred to, more information can be found here:

 

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Abuse of position / corruption	49	12	61

Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged to have been breached:

 

Abuse of position for financial purpose

Abuse of position for other purpose

Abuse of position for sexual purpose

Abuse of position for the purpose of pursuing an inappropriate emotional relationship

Obstruction of justice

Organisational corruption

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Access and/or disclosure of information	37	9	46

Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged to have been breached:

 

Accessing and handling of information from other sources

Disclosure of information

Handling of information

Use of police systems

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Delivery of duties and service	83	4	87

Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged to have been breached:

 

Decisions

General level of service

Information

Police action following contact

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Discreditable conduct	313	77	390

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Discriminatory behaviour	99	6	105

 

Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged to have been breached:

 

Disability

Other

Pregnancy and maternity

Race

Religion or belief

Sex

Sexual orientation

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Handling of or damage to property / premises	4	0	4

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Individual behaviours	73	15	88

Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged to have been breached:

 

Impolite and intolerant actions

Impolite language/tone

Lack of fairness and impartiality

Overbearing or harassing behaviours

Unprofessional attitude and disrespect

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Other	47	8	55

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Police powers, policies and procedures	145	4	149

 

Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged to have been breached:

 

Detention in police custody

Evidential procedures

Other policies and procedures

Out of court disposals

Power to arrest and detain

Searches of premises and seizure of property

Stops, and stop and search

Use of force

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Sexual conduct	146	71	217

Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged to have been breached:

 

Other sexual conduct

Sexual assault

Sexual harassment

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Use of police vehicles	21	1	22

Description	Restricted	Suspended	Grand Total
Grand Total	1046	213	1259

 

Sickness 

0-3 months	4-6 months	7-9 months	10-12 months	over 12 months	Total
795	34	13	9	15	866

Recoup

0-3 months	3-6 months	6-9 months	9-12  months	12 + months	Total
0	198	92	55	236	581

Adjusted duties

Years	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Totals	391	495	280	181	76	37	28	63

 

Please note, this relates to the 3000 officers that you have requested information about, and not the 500 as quoted as being off due to performance / discipline issues.

 

All of the 100 officers who have not been fully deployable for the longest time are on adjusted duties 

Years	Number
5	15
6	55
7	30