Misconduct hearings since 2016

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.028689

I note you seek access to the following information:

Details of any Met misconduct hearings which have involved or made reference to public masturbation, including their outcomes, since (2015).

Whether the officers involved in the above hearings have been subject to any other misconduct hearings, since 2016. If so, please provide details of these and their outcomes.

Whether the officers involved in the above hearings have been subject to any other complaints, either internally or by members of the public, since 2016. If so, please provide details of these and any action taken.

Whether the officers involved in the above hearings are still employed by the Metropolitan Police, and if so, whether they are in a public facing role.

Decision

In response to the second and third parts of your request, this notice neither confirms nor denies that it holds the information you have requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Act (the duty to confirm or deny that information is held) does not apply.

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(5B)(a)(i) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 40(5B)(a)(i) - Personal Information - of the Act provides an exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny whether personal data is held, if doing so would breach one 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.

Having considered the legitimate interest in relation to confirming or denying whether the requested information is held by the MPS, I have found:

a. This request asks the MPS to confirm or deny whether its holds information that would make public, whether two identifiable individuals (including one serving police officer), were the subject of any further allegations of misconduct and/or misconduct hearings from the 1 January 2016. Given the extraordinary powers granted to the police in society, confirming or denying whether any information is held would satisfy legitimate interests in transparency and accountability.

b. Confirming or denying whether the information requested is held is necessary to satisfy the legitimate interest identified at point a above.

c. The MPS will not confirm or deny whether information is held that would make public, whether the two identifiable individuals have been the subject of any further allegations of misconduct or misconduct hearings since the 1 January 2016. To do so would be unexpected and be likely to cause distress to the data subjects, irrespective of whether any information is, or is not, held. In this regard, I believe that confirming or denying whether any information is held would be likely to cause unwarranted harm to the data subjects of this request. This notice accordingly, neither confirms nor denies whether the requested information is held.

Disclosure

Details of any Met misconduct hearings which have involved or made reference to public masturbation, including their outcomes, since (2015).

Misconduct Hearing Outcome	2019	2022	Grand Total
Final Written Warning	1		1
Would Have Been Dismissed		1	1
Grand Total	1	1	2

Whether the officers involved in the above hearings are still employed by the Metropolitan Police, and if so, whether they are in a public facing role.

Answer: One police officer that was the subject of a final written warning in 2019 is still serving with the MPS.

SECTION 16 - ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
The MPS has published relevant information in response to a number of requests made about the alleged sexual misconduct of MPS employees under the Act. I have provided links to this information below.

Officers suspended/dismissed due to allegations of sexual misconduct - 01.FOI.21.018607

Serving officers accused of alleged sexual harassment/assault from 2010 to 2021 - 01.FOI.22.022899

Serving police officers accused of sexual offences and stalking from January 2019 to February 2022 - 01.FOI.22.023436

Additionally the MPS is to publish a dataset that will set out in detail, further information about the alleged sexual misconduct of police employees. This information will be published on the MPS Publication Scheme by the 31 March 2023. I have provided a link to the MPS Publication Scheme below.

MPS Website - Publication Scheme

Maintaining Public Trust in the MPS
Securing and maintaining the trust of the community is integral to the principle of policing by consent and to continue to do so, the MPS recognises that its staff must act with professionalism and integrity. The MPS treats each occasion when an allegation is made about the conduct of its staff extremely seriously and will fully investigate each incident to determine whether the conduct of that member of staff has breached the standards of professional behaviour. Where the conduct of staff is proven to have fallen below the standards of behaviour expected, the MPS will take robust action to ensure that its staff are held to account and that lessons are learnt from each case. Any instance where the conduct of our staff is alleged to have fallen below the standards of behaviour expected is treated extremely seriously by the MPS.