Commissioner Cressida Dick’s resignation communications

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.023367

I note you seek access to the following information:

1) Please disclose all communications (including but not limited to email, text, and WhatsApp) relating to the resignation of former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick sent and received between 00:00 Wednesday 9 February 2022 and 23:59 Monday 14 February 2022 by the following officials:

a. Dame Cressida Dick
b. Steve House
c. Officials/advisers in the Commissioner’s office

If “relating to the resignation of former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick" is too broad, please search for the following search terms: “Cressida Dick”, “Cressida”, “Dick”, “resignation”, “resign”, “mayor”, “Sadiq Khan”, “confidence” and “commissioner”.

2) Please focus your search on correspondence as defined above with the following individuals at the Mayor of London’s office:
a. Sadiq Khan
b. Sophie Linden
c. David Bellamy
d. Richard Watts
e. Staff/advisers in the Mayor of London’s office

and the following officials at the Home Office:

f. Priti Patel
g. Kit Malthouse
h. Matthew Rycroft
i. Tricia Hayes
j. Officials/advisers in the Home Secretary’s office”

Following receipt of your request, I have conducted searches to locate information relevant to your request. These searches located 4 records that are relevant to your request for information. These documents can be summarised as follows:

1. 10 February 2022 - Email chain from Hannah Morgan to MOPAC and other MPS staff members.

2. 10 February 2022 - Letter from former MPS Commissioner Cressida Dick to Mayor of London Sadiq Kahn.

3. 11 February 2022 - Letter from former MPS Commissioner Cressida Dick to Mayor of London Sadiq Kahn.

4. 12 February 2022 - Report by Robin Wilkinson (former MPS Chief of Corporate Services)

Decision

I have disclosed record 4 in full. Records 1-3 have been disclosed in redacted format, that is, I have removed information that I consider to be exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). 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(1)(a) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - Section 31(1)(a) of the Act provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

I have claimed this exemption in that the requested records contain contact details to the Commissioner’s office, the Commissioner’s Chief of Staff and the email addresses of senior employees of the MPS and the MOPAC. This information would, if released, provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, with information that would assist them in this endeavour.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 31(1)(a) is both qualified and prejudice based. I am accordingly required to conduct a public interest test to determine whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information. In addition to conducting a public interest test, I must also establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that would result from disclosure and where prejudice/harm is established but not certain, determine the likelihood of it occurring.

Please find the public interest test considerations that I have identified and considered in relation to claiming Section 31(1)(a) of the Act.

Disruption to the Work of Senior Members of Staff - The release of the contact details to senior members of staff, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS and/or the MOPAC, with information that would assist them to do so. In this regard, a person within this intent would be likely to use this information to make inappropriate contact with senior members of staff and/or send them vast amounts of unsolicited correspondence. This would disrupt the work of these members of staff and cause disruption to the work of the MPS and the MOPAC, hindering their ability to both prevent and detect crime.

Having considered your request, I accept that there is a public interest in transparency when any request is made for police information. The public interest favouring release must be balanced against any associated risk and/or prejudice that would be caused through disclosure.

Having carefully considered this, I have found that the public release and publication of the contact details of senior members of staff at the MPS and the MOPAC, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS and/or the MOPAC, with information that would assist them in this endeavour. Given this and the fact that the removal of this information does not detract from the quality of the records disclosed, I have found that the release of this information is not in the public interest.

Section 40(2)&(3A)(a)(b) - Personal Information - of the Act provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles.

There are six principles that are set out in Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) that dictate when the processing of personal data is lawful. The first principle requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

a. There is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of that personal data.
b. The disclosure of the personal data is necessary to meet that legitimate interest.
c. The disclosure would not cause unwarranted harm to the data subject.

Signature of Former MPS Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick - The requested letters dated 10 February 2022 and 11 February 2022, contain the signature of former MPS Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

a. The disclosure of the signature of former MPS Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick would demonstrate that she, in her role as Commissioner, endorsed the letter to Mayor of London Mr Sadiq Khan dated 11 February 2022.

b. Signatures are a unique personal identifier that are used by individuals in all aspects of their personal lives. The disclosure of the signature of former MPS Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick, is not necessary to meet the legitimate interest identified at point a, as the place in which this signature was present, is evident within the disclosed record. It is accordingly clear that the signature of MPS Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick was present within the requested letter.

Personal Criminal Offence Data - The requested letters contain operational updates about criminal investigations from which living persons can be identified. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

a. The Information Commissioner (the ombudsman for the Act) guidance on the release of personal criminal offence data under the Act states:

‘Due to its sensitivity, the conditions for processing criminal offence data are very restrictive and generally concern specific, stated purposes. Consequently, only two are relevant to allow you to lawfully disclose under FOIA or the EIR. They are similar to those identified above for special category data. These are:

• consent from the data subject; or
• the processing relates to personal data which has clearly been made public by the individual concerned.

If a relevant condition cannot be met, you must not disclose the information as disclosure would be unlawful and therefore in contravention of principle (a).’

The conditions required to release personal criminal offence data are not present in this case. The release of the requested personal data does not accordingly satisfy a legitimate interest and cannot be disclosed under the Act.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.

Disclosure

Please find below redacted information pursuant to your request above.

DUTY TO ADVISE AND ASSIST
The Home Office has published Sir Tom Winsor’s review of the circumstances surrounding the departure of Dame Cressida Dick, the former MPS Commissioner. Sir Tom Winsor is the former Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Sir Tom’s review was commissioned by the Home Secretary to assess the facts surrounding the departure of Dame Cressida Dick, whether the correct procedures had been followed and to make recommendations as to how the processes for the accountability of the commissioner could be improved. I have provided a link to this review below.

Independent report: Commissioner Accountability Review
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/commissioner-accountability-review