Data on the use in operations/protests & complaints of drones

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.030112

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. Does Metropolitan Police,
(a) own unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones?
If so, how many, and what type or make?
(b) sub-contract UAV services from an outside body, company, or other police force for police operations?
If so, which body/company/forces and what type/make are used?

2. How many times has the Metropolitan Police used drones for police operations between the period of April 2022 and March 2023 (please provide this in monthly figures - if answering this question may exceed cost limits, a monthly estimate would be sufficient, though please state that these figures are estimated)?
And, can you describe the type of operations in which drones have been used i.e. missing person search, public order, road traffic accident etc ?

3. Can you list the dates Metropolitan Police have used UAVs in relation to protests or demonstration type events between April 2022 and March 2023, along with the name/type of event covered?

4. How many complaints, if any, have been lodged with Metropolitan Police about their use of UAVs during the period of April 2022 and March 2023?

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)(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 43(2) – Commercial Interests

In addition, the Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny whether any other information is or is not held relevant to the covert use of drones 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 exemptions:

Section 23(5) - Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security bodies
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement

Reason for decision

To provide details of all the types of drones operated by the MPS in response to your first question could allow criminals to employ either tactical or technical counter measures to undermine their operational capability. This would disrupt the MPS’s ability to prevent and detect crime and as well as the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.

In addition, to provide a monthly breakdown of all overt drone usage by the MPS covering a specific year could, through multiple requests along with any other information already in the public domain, assist in identifying specific operations and jeopardize any which may be planned in the future. This would undermine our law enforcement tactics and as stated above hinder the prevention and detection of crime and apprehension and prosecution of offenders.

Similarly in relation to Question 3, to disclose any dates and details when drones may have been deployed overtly to support the policing of a protest or demonstration would identify the MPS’s operational capability and tactics, which would assist those with a criminal intent to avoid detection.

Therefore, it is for these reasons that Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Act is engaged.

Furthermore, this request also attracts Section 43(2) of the Act as to provide details of all the types or the make of drones used by the MPS would be prejudicial to the commercial interests of manufacturers as this would identify the types and capabilities of drones that we procure. This would not only damage the manufacturer’s relationship with the MPS, but also put the Service at a disadvantage, as it would adversely affect our ability to source other suppliers in a competitive environment. Any disclosure of information, which would likely be prejudicial to the commercial activities of the MPS or another company is not in the public interest.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement - A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because under the Act, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, not just to an individual. The use of drones is a rapidly developing technique, which can be used by the police service as a whole in a variety of ways to combat crime.

Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, providing the different types of drones in use by the MPS, details relating to operational use over specific time periods and which protests or demonstrations this may have been used would reveal the capabilities of these resources and give important information to criminals. The release of this information, combined with detailed information readily available on the internet, would allow criminals to identify the strengths and weakness of the aircraft, which they would then be able to use to their advantage when planning criminal acts and thus allow these to continue. This would therefore both directly and indirectly impact on the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals and increase the fear of crime in the community the police service seeks to serve.

Similarly, by providing any information relating to when the MPS had deployed drones overtly to support the policing of a demonstration or protest would allow those with a criminal intent to be aware of if any offences committed had a likelihood of being detected or gather intelligence on likely future deployments and thus be aware of whether their activities could be detected.

Any disclosure of information which would hinder the MPS’s law enforcement functions cannot be in the public interest.

Disclosure of the information requested would compromise law enforcement tactics. Terrorists could target areas of weakness knowing that their activities are less likely to be detected. It may be used by criminals/terrorists who are intent on pursuing their criminal activity, to identify and exploit the limitations of these resources. Disclosure of the type of drones used would mean that individuals could research details about them and their capabilities. This would highlight the strengths and any possible weaknesses of the equipment, which would lead to more crime being committed and individuals being placed at risk, thus hindering the prevention and detection of crime and increasing the risk to public safety and the safety of operational teams.

To provide any information concerning the deployment of drones overtly during specific events would allow criminals to gauge whether any offences committed were likely to be detected and aid their planning for any future demonstrations or protests due to take place.

Law enforcement is of paramount importance and the Police service will not disclose information if to do so would undermine its purpose and place the safety of individual(s) at risk. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of using public money in policing operations appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by criminals or terrorists, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both the security of the country and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of security and law enforcement, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The use of drones is a police tactic that is open to police forces for the purpose of law enforcement and can assist in the prevention and detection of crime. Any disclosure which hinders our capability and assists criminals cannot be in the public interest.

It is for these reasons that I have determined that the balance test favours non-disclosure of the requested information.

Section 43 – Commercial Interests - I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure. In this case the disclosure of all the types of drones used by the MPS, particularly by identification of the type or make of specific UAVs, could be seen as an endorsement of particular products and provide a benefit to that company and detriment to other rival products, especially within the area of counter-measures within the market.

Potential purchasers of this equipment may seek procurement from other suppliers, through their knowledge that particular types or models of drones are used by the MPS. Any disclosure, which prejudices the commercial interests of either the MPS, by affecting our ability to source suppliers in a competitive environment or a company, through likely loss of business and therefore revenue, cannot be in the public interest.

Disclosure of the requested information would weaken the position of the MPS in a competitive environment, due to a disclosure of market sensitive information. This would have a harmful effect on future partnerships when entering into commercial activities. To identify the products of specific companies could prejudice their commercial interests if it results in potential purchasers reconsidering procuring their equipment. Any subsequent loss of business or income would prejudice their commercial interests

I have found that it is important that the MPS protects its own commercial interests, as maintaining effective commercial arrangements supports the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. In view of this, I have found that the public interest lies in favour of preserving the commercial interests of the MPS and our suppliers by withholding some of the requested information and this outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

In addition the Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm or deny whether it holds any other information relevant 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 exemptions:

Section 23 - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters
Section 24 - National Security
Section 31 - Law Enforcement

As you will be aware, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the use of this specialist equipment for covert use, would show criminals what the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the force are, allowing them to target specific areas of the UK to conduct their criminal/terrorist activities. Confirming or denying the specific circumstances in which the police service may or may not deploy UAVs/drones, would lead to an increase of harm to covert investigations and compromise law enforcement. This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.

The threat of terrorism cannot be ignored and it should be recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. The UK faces a sustained threat from violent terrorists and extremists. Since 2006, the UK Government has published the threat level, based upon current intelligence and that threat is currently categorised as ‘substantial’.

The UK continues to face a sustained threat from violent extremists and terrorists.
It is well established that police forces use covert tactics and surveillance to gain intelligence in order to counteract criminal behaviour. It has been previously documented in the media that many terrorist incidents have been thwarted due to intelligence gained by these means.

Confirming or denying that any other information is held in relation to the covert use of UAVs or drones would limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists would gain a greater understanding of the police’s methods and techniques, enabling them to take steps to counter them. It may also suggest the limitations of police capabilities in this area, which may further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by exposing potential vulnerabilities. This detrimental effect is increased if the request is made to several different law enforcement bodies. In addition to the local criminal fraternity now being better informed, those intent on organised crime throughout the UK will be able to ‘map’ where the use of certain tactics and capabilities are, or are not deployed. This can be useful information to those committing crimes as it would have the likelihood of identifying location-specific operations which would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and future prosecutions as criminals could counteract the measures used against them.

Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.

By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would render Security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.

Confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the covert use of UAVs/drones would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and would also hinder any future investigations. In addition, confirming or denying methods used to gather intelligence for an investigation would prejudice that investigation and any possible future proceedings.

It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and terrorists and so to confirm or deny any other information is held concerning specialist covert tactics would lead to law enforcement being undermined. The Police Service is reliant upon all manner of techniques during operations and the public release of any modus operandi employed, if held, would prejudice the ability of the Police Service to conduct similar investigations.

By confirming or denying whether any other information is held in relation to the covert use of UAVs/drones would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. The Police Service would not wish to reveal what tactics may or may not have been used to gain intelligence as this would clearly undermine the law enforcement and investigative process. This would impact on police resources and more crime and terrorist incidents would be committed, placing individuals at risk. It can be argued that there are significant risks associated with providing information, if held, in relation to any aspect of investigations or of any nation's security arrangements so confirming or denying that any other information is held, may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we may be trying to protect.

The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge whether any other information is or is not held regarding the covert use of UAVs/drones if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk, undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement.

Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and all areas of operations carried out by police forces throughout the UK, such as extremism, crime prevention, public disorder and terrorism prevention.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.
The use of UAVs/drones in any covert capacity is a sensitive issue that would reveal police tactics and local intelligence. Therefore, it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any other information is held regarding the covert use of UAVs/drones, is not made out.

However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any additional information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

Disclosure

Q1 - Does Metropolitan Police,
(a) own unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones?

Yes

If so, how many?

In excess of 80 drones

What type or make?

Although all type and make of drones are exempt by virtue of Section 31(1)(a)(b). Two make/models are suitable to be disclosed - Inspire 2 and Matrice 210 V2.

(b) sub-contract UAV services from an outside body, company, or other police force for police operations?

No

If so, which body/company/forces and what type/make are used?

N/A

Q2 - How many times has the Metropolitan Police used drones for police operations between the period of April 2022 and March 2023?

Drones have been deployed overtly an estimated 210 times during this period. Please note that this figure includes training deployments.

And, can you describe the type of operations in which drones have been used i.e. missing person search, public order, road traffic accident etc ?

In regards to overt use, these have been deployed for taking photographs of crime scenes, providing aerial support for pre-planned operations, surveying premises and providing live footage of operational deployments to assist command decision making and therefore support a wider policing plan.

Q4 - How many complaints, if any, have been lodged with Metropolitan Police about their use of UAVs during the period of April 2022 and March 2023?

None