MPS Facial Recognition Technology Board meeting minutes

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.029662

I note you seek access to the following information:

Minutes for the two most recent meetings of the MPS Facial Recognition Technology Board

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 42(1) – Legal Professional Privilege
Section 31(1)(a) - Law enforcement
Section 40(2) & 40(3A)(a) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 42(1) – Legal Professional Privilege - This exemption applies to information that is protected by Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). The relevant paragraph is subject to Litigation Privilege. This privilege protects confidential written or oral communications between a lawyer and third parties (here, the MPS).

There was an inherent understanding by the legislators when they introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000 that harm would be caused by the disclosure of information that falls within this exemption – this is why there is no requirement to articulate the prejudice when arguing that it is engaged.

There is a strong public interest in safeguarding the openness between communications between a lawyer and their client in order to allow for the full and frank provision of legal advice.

Whilst the MPS understands there is always a public interest in transparency in high profile matters of interest, there is a strong public interest in safeguarding the openness between communications between a lawyer and their client in order to allow for the full and frank communication and advice as a fundamental tenant to the effective administration of justice.

The MPS considers that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure. Therefore, disclosure of this information cannot be seen to be in the public interest at this time.

This decision has been made on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public, but is what would be of great good to the public as a whole, if the information were disclosed.

Section 31(1)(a) Law Enforcement - While we appreciate you will have no ill meaning behind your request, disclosure could be used by those with criminal intent against the MPS or the UK as intelligence in regards to resources and law enforcement products/methodology. It is not in the public interest to disclose information that could be used to assist in the planning of criminal activity, due to an adverse FOIA disclosure.

Disclosure would lead to a loss of confidence in the MPS’ ability to protect the safety of the community (for example, following an adverse FOIA disclosure regarding service specifications).

The risks to individuals are likely to be significant if the information is used by those with the necessary criminal intent to undermine the very purpose information is held (crime detection and prevention).

Extra security measures and policing resources may need to be put into place with the disclosure of this information. This is because of the risk disclosure brings in that it could be used as intelligence by those with the necessary criminal intent to undermine policing.

The strongest reason favouring disclosure is increasing public knowledge of the use of public funds.

The strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is to not undermine law enforcement tactics, methodology and resources by virtue of an adverse disclosure.

On weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure.

The other information disclosed today ensures the public interest is met without placing law enforcement and the safety and security of the community in harm’s way.

I appreciate this is not the decision you would have liked for this part of your request. However this decision has been made on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public but is what would be of greater interest to the public as a whole, should the information be disclosed.

Section S40(2) & S40(3A)(a) – Personal Information - 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 Freedom of Information, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world and not just to one individual.

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.

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 (UK 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.

The minutes contains the names of living individuals, including staff members.

Some individual members of the public may feel there is to some degree a legitimate interest in the disclosure of the redacted personal information upon request.

However, the rationale for redacting information is that disclosure is not necessary to satisfy the legitimate interest in disclosure and/or may cause unwarranted harm to one or more data subjects. The names of those already in the public domain who work in this area of Facial recognition have been consider and disclosed today.

Consequently, it would be disproportionate to disclose the redacted remaining personal information.

Additionally there is not an overwhelming legitimate interest of full disclosure of all personal information in consideration that the information in the documents has been disclosed today, along with names of those in the public domain in connection with working in this subject matter.

Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that particularly in consideration of staff members, and in the context of these minutes, they do not hold roles where they would reasonably expect their names to be continually published in response to specific Freedom of Information Act request relating to requests that at a given point in time may be allocated to them. Additionally, the functions that they performed within these minutes were not that of a decision maker.

The disclosure provided today demonstrates accountability and transparency and is important to the MPS. The rationale for non-disclosure of a staff members name is based on the fact there is little necessity to disclose this personal information to meet a legitimate interest and that disclosure may cause unwarranted harm in its disclosure to the individuals to which the data refers. Consequently, it would be disproportionate to disclose the redacted information.

I have not therefore identified a strong legitimate interest that would be satisfied in disclosing the redacted personal data or any personal data in requests, in response to this request for information.

The public release of names of all MPS employees or all personal information within FOIA requests would not satisfy any identifiable legitimate interest.

Consequently and as explained above, it would be disproportionate to disclose the redacted information.

Disclosure

The MPS located two sets of minutes relevant to your request and have redacted these and disclosed them to you today.