The use of drones by the MPS

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.030161

I note you seek access to the following information:

1) For what operations has the Met used drones? For example, observing demos? Civil Unrest? Speeding?
When did these operations did take place and how many drones were used and how were the drones used in the operations?

2) How many drones does the Met have/own?

3) Are drones still being used in Met police investigations?
If so, in what kind of operations?

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 21 – Information reasonably accessible by other means

In addition, the Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny whether any other information is or is not held 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(5) - Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security bodies
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement

Reason for decision

I am pleased to inform you that information has previously been disclosed under FOIA relating to the types of operations where MPS deploys drones and therefore is already in the public domain. This is published on the MPS website, see links below.

Use of Drones Policing Policy guidance (pages 29 and 38)

Therefore, this information has been identified as being accessible via other means as it is already published. Where information is already in the public domain the MPS are not required to re-publish the data; instead public authorities are required to direct you to the information, which we have done in this instance. This action is in accordance with Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act.

However, to disclose information on all the operations where drones were used overtly, the number and details relating to their deployment 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. It would assist in identifying specific operations and jeopardize any which may be planned in the future, thus undermining our law enforcement functions. Therefore, for these reasons Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Act is engaged.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement - In considering whether or not the MPS should release the information requested I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by such a disclosure.

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, to provide details concerning the operations where drones were overtly deployed, the specific number(s) and for what purpose would reveal the capabilities of these resources and give important information to criminals. The release of this information would allow criminals to identify our operational planning, which they would then be able to use to their advantage when planning criminal acts and thus allow these to continue, along with an awareness of whether their activities could be detected

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.

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 or organised crime groups etc. could target specific types of events knowing that their activities are less likely to be detected and aid their future planning. This 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.

For the MPS to mitigate the risk of criminals being able to exploit our use of drones to prevent and detect crime there is a need to be careful about the information that is disclosed under FOIA.

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.

By providing any information relating to when the MPS had overtly deployed drones, the numbers and their purpose to support the policing of an operation 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.

Any disclosure which hinders our capability and assists criminals cannot be in the public interest.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

Please below information suitable for disclosure.

Q2 - How many drones does the Met have/own?

In excess of 80 drones

Q3 - Are drones still being used in Met police investigations?

Yes

(b) What type of operations?

Please refer to the links above