Data on strip searches by the MPS

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.026806

I note you seek access to the following information:

Documentation or analysis” refers to any documentation relating to the statistical analysis your force published in August 2022 on (Exposure of Intimate Parts (EIP) or More Through searches where Intimate Parts are exposed (MTIP)) on children (under 18 year olds). This may include internal memos or other written documents, statistical analysis, spreadsheets or emails concerning the subsequently published information.

I would like to submit a revised request regarding your forces use of strip-searches (Exposure of Intimate Parts (EIP) or More Through searches where Intimate Parts are exposed (MTIP)) on children (under 18 year olds).

1. In August 2022 it was revealed that your force had strip-searched 650 children between 2018 and 2020. It was also disclosed that 53% of these resulted in ‘No Further Action’. Please provide the documentation or analysis relating to this strip search data that resulted in the 53% ‘No Further Action’ figure that was published and placed in the public domain.
2. Do you hold an easily retrievable record of what action the other 47% resulted in?
   a. If yes, please provide information on the outcomes, e.g what charges or resolution occurred.

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)&(3) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 40(2)(a)(b) 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.

The information that has been redacted is names, signature and contact details from the emails and information relating to an incident has been redacted from the letter. Having considered the release of information I have found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that:

a. The disclosure of the redacted information would not satisfy an identifiable legitimate interest.
b. As there is no identifiable legitimate interest identified in (a) there is no need to disclose
a. Publication of the names and contact details would be likely to lead to unwanted and unsolicited intrusion. Signatures are a unique personal identifier that are used by individuals in all aspects of their personal lives. The disclosure of the signature of Dame Rachel de Souza, is not necessary as there is no 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 Dame Rachel de Souza was present within the requested letter.
The section redacted relating to an incident is of a sensitive personal nature and releasing this text would identify the individual which would lead to unwanted and unsolicited intrusion into their personal lives.

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 see the files below.