Data on Police Injury Benefit(PIB)

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.030292

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. In the last 12-18 months:
a. How many officers were awarded a Band 4 IOD Award under Regulation 11 of the PIBR 2006
b. What was the condition(s) listed on the certificate of disablement
c. What was the date of the injury, the date of retirement, and the date of the IOD Award?
d. Were they considered for an additional gratuity under Regulation 12 of the PIBR 2006?
e. If they were not awarded a Regulation 12 Gratuity, what was the reason for the refusal?

2. Of those officers in 1 above:
a. how many were awarded an additional gratuity under Regulation 12 of the PIBR 2006
b. Of those awarded the gratuity, what was the condition(s) listed on the certificate of disablement
c. What was the date of the injury, the date of retirement, and the date of the IOD Award?

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 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

With regard to section 40, the information that you are requesting relates to former employees, who are living, identifiable individuals. Although we can disclose information on the number of individuals awarded these pensions, specific information pertaining to their health relates to their private lives and would be considered special category data. The disclosure of such information would be unlawful and unfair, and could not be considered necessary or proportionate in the circumstances of your request.

Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information - 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.

The information sought under your Freedom of Information request includes the following which we consider to be the Personal Data of the individuals at the heart of your request:

• Conditions of disablement
• The date of the injury, the date of retirement, and the date of the IOD Award

Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data 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).

In addition, it is necessary to meet a condition within Article 9(2) of the GDPR to lawfully process Special Category data. This is defined in Article 9(1) of the GDPR as personal data about an individual’s:
o race
o ethnic origin
o political opinions
o religious or philosophical beliefs,
o trade union membership
o genetic data
o biometric data (where used for identification purposes)
o health
o sex life
o sexual orientation

In this instance, it is the individuals’ health and the details relating to their disablement which becomes relevant.

The first condition under Section 40(2)(3A) 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 this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which requires that personal data shall be:

‘processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’);

Under the Data Protection Act 2018, 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.

Here, we need to balance the rights and freedoms of the individuals involved with any legitimate public interest in disclosure.

The MPS understands that there will be an interest in knowing about injuries on duty, the nature of them, and how long between an injury and the issuing of an award, in order to ascertain the nature of the process and ensure it is being used justly. However, before any IOD pension award can be granted, a duly qualified medical practitioner must be able to determine whether a person is permanently disabled, and to what level. Therefore all claims are made within a system that is inherently designed to ensure the conditions of disablement are at an appropriate level. Disclosing the specifics in this case would not serve to prove this system was being used appropriately; instead it would just disclose sensitive, ‘special category’ data about these retired individuals. Disclosing it in response to this request would therefore not be necessary or proportionate in the circumstances.

Finally, it is for the MPS to consider whether disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm to the data subjects. Given the private nature of the information in question, it would be grossly unfair to disclose details of ex-employees medical histories, or information which could be used to identify them through the publishing of their specific injury dates and subsequent dates of retirement. It is obvious that such information, if disclosed, could be used to identify those involved, which would be distressing for the involved parties and would have a lasting impact upon them.

Disclosure

In response to question 1, from January 2022 to the present, a total of 3 ex-officers were awarded a Band 4 IoD pension under Regulation 11 of the PIBR 2006.

None of these officers were considered for an additional gratuity under Regulation 12 of the PIBR 2006 as none of them are “totally and permanently disabled as a result of the injury.” Therefore, they were not eligible.

In relation to question 2, as explained, the answer is none of the officers were awarded an additional gratuity under Regulation 12 of the PIBR 2006 as they were not eligible and so the remaining questions are not applicable.