Central records of service for former senior officers

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.026281

I note you seek access to the following information:

I would like the Central Records service of these former Met Police Officers.

1. DAC Ian Forbes
2. DAC Richard Chitty
3. DAC Harold Hudson
4. DAC Ernest Bond
5. DAC John Du Rose
6. Comm Wallace Virgo
7. Comm Roy Yorke
8. Comm Robert Huntley
9. Comm Ferguson Walker
10. Comm Frederick Gerrard”

On the 21st of September 2022, I wrote to you and stated:
“In requesting the “Central Records service” of 10 people that you state are former MPS police officers, can you confirm whether:

1. You refer to the timeframes that each person was employed by the MPS?
Or
2. You refer to the timeframes that each person was employed by the MPS inclusive of details of any postings that they had in the careers with the MPS?”

On the same date, you responded to my email and stated:

“Thanks for your reply, I'd like to see & know there Joining/ Postings & Promotions from PC to Detective Ranks up to their Retirement dates please.”

Following receipt of your clarified request, I have conducted searches to locate information relevant to your request. These searches located the Central Record of Service (CRS) of the following former police officers:

2. Richard Chitty
3. Harold Hudson
4 .Ernest Bond
5. John Du Rose
6. Wallace Virgo
7. Roy Yorke
8. Robert Huntley
9. Ferguson Walker
10. Frederick Gerrard

The searches failed to locate the CRS of a former Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ian Forbes. The requested information cannot accordingly be provided to you as it is held by the MPS. It should also be noted that my searches have been limited to locating the CRS of each former police officer. I have not completed further searches to establish whether any other personnel records are held that may hold information is that relevant to this request. These searches have not been completed as your request specifically seeks access to the CRS of each former police officer.

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) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - Section 31(1)(a) of the Act provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

I have claimed this exemption in that the release of each former officer’s employment history may allow sensitive operational information to be obtained or inferred through a series of similar or related requests for information. This information would, if released, provide persons intent on establishing operationally sensitive material, with information that would assist them in this endeavour. This would directly prejudice the Met’s ability to prevent and detect crime.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 31(1)(a) is both qualified and prejudice based. I am accordingly required to conduct a public interest test to determine whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information. In addition to conducting a public interest test, I must also establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that would result from disclosure and where prejudice/harm is established but not certain, determine the likelihood of it occurring.

Please find the public interest test considerations that I have identified and considered in relation to claiming Section 31(1)(a) of the Act.

Identification of Sensitive Operational Roles and Information - The public release of information in respect of each former officer’s employment history whilst holding a rank below that of Chief Superintendent, may allow sensitive operational information to be obtained or inferred through a series of similar or related requests for information. A number of former police officers have been employed in sensitive roles with the MPS where the disclosure of that information could cause current operational harm. For example, the public release of information about an officer’s former deployment in a sensitive role, irrespective of when that was, could cause harm, or place at risk, sources of information, tactics or individuals. To ensure that such a disclosure does not occur, it is important that the MPS is consistent in the type of information it discloses in this area. For example, when disclosing a former officer’s employment history, if the MPS were to only redact or exempt information relating to sensitive postings, the nature of exempt information could be inferred or in some cases established. Therefore, it is necessary to also redact information relating to less sensitive roles and business areas.

A consistent approach to withholding the employment histories of police officers below the rank of Chief Superintendent, allows the MPS to protect sensitive operational material.

Having considered your request, I accept that there is a public interest in transparency when any request is made for police information. I also accept that release of the postings of former police officers whilst holding a rank below that of Chief Superintendent, would provide insight into how each former officer’s career with the MPS progressed. The release of this information would also facilitate public debate by providing information about historic staffing structures of the MPS.

The public interest favouring release must be balanced against any associated risk and/or prejudice that would be caused through disclosure. Having carefully considered this, I have found that the public release of the employment histories of former police officers, where they held a rank below that of Chief Superintendent, to be of risk to police operations. This would occur as the public release of information about an officer’s former deployment could allow, through a series of related requests, sensitive roles performed by officers to be established. This could, irrespective of when that role was undertaken, place at risk sources of information, tactics or individuals. A consistent approach to withholding the employment histories of police officers below the rank of Chief Superintendent, accordingly allows the MPS to protect sensitive operational material.

Having carefully considered all identified public interest factors, I have found that the public interest supports withholding each former officer’s employment history whilst holding a rank below that of Chief Superintendent. Withholding this information allows the MPS to continue to prevent and detect crime without undue prejudice.

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

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 MPS Data Office does not hold information that would confirm to the standard required to process personal data under the Act, whether each former officer is currently alive or deceased. The decisions made in connection with this request for information have accordingly given appropriate regard to each former officer’s rights as set out by the Data Protection Act 2018. In this regard, I have not disclosed the following information:

1. Postings whilst holding a rank below that of Chief Superintendent
2. Promotions whilst holding a rank below that of Chief Superintendent

Have considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

a. The disclosure of the requested personal data would satisfy legitimate interests in transparency and accountability, given that the personal data relates to each officer’s professional role with the MPS.

b. This disclosure of the requested personal data is necessary to satisfy the legitimate interest identified at point a.

c. Retired police officers that held senior roles would expect that information about the roles they performed whilst holding senior office would be made available to the public. They would not expect however, the MPS to make available and publish information about the roles they performed when holding more junior ranks. The release and publication of this information would be unexpected and potentially distressing to them. In this regard, I believe that disclosure of this personal data would be likely to cause unwarranted harm to the data subjects in this request. The requested personal data has accordingly been withheld from release under this exemption.

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

In relation to the former officers named in your request, I have decided to disclose all of the requested information recorded on each former officer’s CRS for the period where they held the rank of Chief Superintendent or above. This is comprised of the following information in respect of each former officer:

1. Joining date
2. Promotions from the rank of Chief Superintendent and above
3. Postings from the rank of Chief Superintendent and above
4. Final rank prior to leaving the MPS
5. Dates associated with points 1-3 above

The information disclosed in response to your request has been provided in the document disclosed alongside this notice. In respect of any requested information that relates to instances where each former officer was:

a. Posted whilst holding a rank below that of Chief Superintendent
b. Promoted whilst holding a rank below that of Chief Superintendent

In respect of any other information contained within each former officer’s Central Record of Service, this information has been redacted as it is out of scope of this request for information.