Correspondence between Commissioner Dick and Home Secretary/Mayor – Commissioner’s Resignation

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.024142

I note you seek access to the following information:

Any email or letter correspondence between the Met Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick and - Home Secretary Priti Patel - Mayor of London Sadiq Khan that refers to the resignation and departure of Dame Cressida Dick in her role as Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

On the 12 April 2022, Ms Solomon wrote to you and requested that you provide a date range for your request for information. On the 12 April 2022, you responded to the email of Ms Solomon and provided a date range of the 1 February 2022 to the 28 February 2022.

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(1)(a) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3A)(a)(b) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - 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 letter contains the telephone number to the Commissioner’s office which would, if released, provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, with information that would assist them in this endeavour.

Disruption to the Work of Senior Members of Staff - The release of the telephone number to the Commissioner’s office would, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, 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 members of staff in the Commissioner’s office. This would tie up the resources of these members of staff and cause disruption to the work of the MPS, hindering its ability to prevent and detect crime.

When considering whether the release of information is in the public interest, I have to consider whether the public interest is in favour of releasing information into the public domain or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding the requested information. 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 telephone number to the Commissioner’s office, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of MPS, 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 record 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. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b) and 3B of the Act.

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 letter contains 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 letter contains 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 Freedom of Information Act 2000.

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