Crimes taken place at the Palace of Westminster in 2022

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.028311

I note you seek access to the following information:

Please could you provide me with a full list on the nature and number of crimes that were reported to you as having taken place at the Palace of Westminster (ie the building that contains the House of Commons and the House of Lords) in the 2022 calendar year.

For each offence that was reported to you please give the full Home Office description of the crime as well as how it was resolved (Ie. giving the Home Office nature of the crime resolution).

For the crimes of theft that were reported please provide a detailed list showing what was stolen in each case?

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 30(3) – Criminal Investigations
Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(5) – Personal Information

In addition, the Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm or deny whether it holds any further information relevant to this request as the duty in Section 1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)

Reason for decision

Section 30(3) – Criminal Investigations - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities - (3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1) or (2).

Confirming or denying whether further information is, or is not, held that may relate to an ongoing investigation could hinder the prevention or detection of crime and impact upon that investigation.

We would not wish to reveal any details, such as whether certain information is or is not held regarding any further reported offences, as this would clearly undermine the investigative process.

Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement - In considering whether or not to confirm or deny that we hold any further information, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by this disclosure. Every effort should be made to release information under Freedom of Information. However, to confirm or deny any information or policing actions would undermine ongoing investigations by revealing whether further offences may, or may not, have been recorded. This would undermine the effective delivery of operational law enforcement by revealing the focus of police activity.

The MPS will not divulge information relating to ongoing investigations or the focus of police activity as to do so would undermine both tactical and investigative processes. Confirming or denying whether any further information is held would be of use to those who seek to disrupt police activity, as it would reveal details of whether certain offences have been reported, which may assist individuals to determine who is, or is not, a subject of investigation.

To confirm or deny the existence of any further information relating to crimes recorded at the Palace of Westminster would highlight how many investigations could be ongoing and alert possible offenders to the importance that might be placed on this area of crime. Any subsequent enquiries or investigations could therefore be compromised.

To confirm or deny what level of policing activity has or has not occurred in specific areas would enable those engaged in criminal or terrorist activity to identify the focus of policing activity and any tactics that may or may not be deployed.
Confirming or denying the existence of any further information would also reveal policing tactics regarding who was of interest to the police generally. This could 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.

Confirmation or denial that any further information is held may also hinder and undermine the partnership approach to law enforcement in this complex area.

The most persuasive reasons for confirming or denying any further information is held would be greater assurance to the public that any reported crimes to the police are investigated thoroughly and would give an indication of the level of crime that is being reported in this area.

However, this need to be weighed against the strongest negative reason, which, in this case, is to confirm or deny any further information is held would compromise and undermine the MPS’s law enforcement capabilities in its ability to prevent and detect crime. The effectiveness of any ongoing or future investigations may be compromised as potential offenders would be alerted and able to identify the focus of police activity. They could then take steps to disrupt the investigation and evade prosecution, which could ultimately lead to the need for more police resources.

Therefore, it is our opinion, after weighing up the competing interests, that the balancing test favours neither confirmation nor denial.

Section 40(5A)&(5B)(a)(i) - Personal Information - Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is designed to address information that is covered by the Data Protection Act 2018.

Under section 40(5), the MPS is not required to comply with the requirements of section 1(1) (a) i.e. the duty to inform the applicant whether or not the information is held.

In most cases Personal Data is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as I will explain below.

To confirm or deny whether personal information exists could publicly reveal information about an identifiable individual or individuals, thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2018.

Where an individual is requesting his or her own personal data the information is always exempt. Such information can be requested under other legislation.
Where an individual is requesting third party personal data the MPS must ensure that any action taken adheres to the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the GDPR. To clarify, the Freedom of Information Act only allows disclosure of personal data if that disclosure would be compliant with the principles for processing personal data. These principles are outlined under section 34 of the DPA 2018 and under Article 5 of the GDPR.

Section 40 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in this case. To confirm or deny information were held would likely identify individuals and therefore breach the Data Protection Act.

Disclosure

Please find attached a report relevant to your request.

Please note the following important contextual information regarding weapons offences. Weapons would have been found on visitors to the estate through security screening, which would explain the relatively high volume of offensive weapon and firearms offences, as Mace/CS type incapacitating sprays would be included in this classification.

Ordinarily the MPS would not entertain a Community Resolution for such offences, but in the context of foreign national visitors having such items in their possession and unknowingly committing offences in the UK it is considered a balanced and proportionate approach.