Redacted strategic plans

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.027393

I note you seek access to the following information:

Current Request:
1. Please answer the first question of my FOI. It is not the case that the Met would need to consult thousands of people to determine which EIAs (if any) apply to the mentioned operations. This is because a) there either will be a centralised EIA/EIAs for the operation(s), or none at all; and b) the Met has sent us such centralised EIAs for other operations. For your reference, the Met sent me the EIAs for Operation Pima (01/FOI/21/020535) and Operation Boxster (1/FOI/22/023245). In that latter FOI, it also said that for some other operations there were no EIAs.

2. Regarding the second question of my FOI, I take from your response that the Met has no centralised record of how any of these operations complied with the PSED and instead compliance is handled by individual units at their own discretion with no centralised oversight. Please advise if this understanding is wrong.

3. The third question of my FOI should be easily answerable. For the avoidance of any confusion, I am referring to centrally held documents relating to the operations. Again, the Met has sent me such a document before for another operation (01/FOI/21/019028). If no such overarching document is held centrally, please advise.

4.The fourth question of my FOI should be easily answerable. Either arrest data is held for each operation, or it is not.

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)(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 38(1) Health and safety
Section 40(2)(3)&(4) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for information can be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

For the strategic plans requested for Q3 redactions were made as to disclose names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses and details of specific policing tactics and intelligence such as what resources are used and where they are located and how the police operate under certain conditions etc could cause an individual to be identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation. This cannot be allowed. Consideration must also be given to the mental state of the individual/victim/families if identified.

Section 31- Law Enforcement - Disclosure of names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses and details of specific policing tactics and intelligence such as what resources are used and where they are located and how the police operate under certain conditions etc risks the identity of the victim/suspect being revealed. This may cause an investigation to collapse as the individual could be targeted, or undermine the confidence in the police.

Disclosure of the information requested could identify persons captured by the scope of this request. Individuals could analyse the information (and along with local knowledge) identify the individual concerned. This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and also prejudice the MPS's ability to fairly conduct an investigation.

Section 38(1) – Health & Safety - of the Act provides an exemption from the disclosure of information which would, or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of any individual.

Disclosure of names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses and details of specific policing tactics and intelligence such as what resources are used and where they are located and how the police operate under certain conditions etc will provide any person with knowledge of the offence, incident and where it took place, to use the information disclosed to work out who the individual may be and cause that person (or others) much distress and harm. This could compromise the mental health of the person involved or/and the ongoing or any other future investigation.

Disclosure of names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses and details of specific policing tactics and intelligence such as what resources are used and where they are located and how the police operate under certain conditions could jeopardise the mental state and safety of the individual. This will not be in the public interest. If this information was to fall into the hands of others involved/aware the information can be used to undermine the security and safety of the wider community and/or the person concerned.

The harm identified above, is reduced by not disclosing names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses and details of specific policing tactics and intelligence such as what resources are used and where they are located and how the police operate under certain conditions etc to ensure the identity of subjects captured by this request is not revealed.

It is imperative that the safety and identity of those captured by this request, or the compromising of the investigation was not a factor, when trying to be transparent in disclosing as much information as possible. The MPS has a duty of care to the communities served. In view of the arguments provided above, it is our opinion, that disclosure in full of names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses and details of specific policing tactics and intelligence such as what resources are used and where they are located and how the police operate under certain conditions cannot be permitted.

Section 40 - Personal Information - Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is Personal Data.

The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption.

The information sought under your Freedom of Information request includes the following which we consider to be Personal Data, names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses, house addresses etc.

Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data the section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.

In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3A, 3B and 4A of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as amended by Schedule 19 of the Data Protection Act 2018, specifically Section 58 of that schedule).

The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.

There are six Data Protection principles set out in the 2018 act and these can be found at section 34.

In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which states that the processing (in this case the disclosure) of the data must be both lawful and fair.

It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 31, 38 & 40 to the same pieces of information.

Disclosure

Q1 - Please answer the first question of my FOI. It is not the case that the Met would need to consult thousands of people to determine which EIAs (if any) apply to the mentioned operations. This is because a) there either will be a centralised EIA/EIAs for the operation(s), or none at all; and b) the Met has sent us such centralised EIAs for other operations. For your reference, the Met sent me the EIAs for Operation Pima (01/FOI/21/020535) and Operation Boxster (1/FOI/22/023245). In that latter FOI, it also said that for some other operations there were no EIAs.

Please note that the previous FOI response to you was cost refused for Q2 of your previous request and not Q1. There were no specific overarching EIA’s created for these operations.

Q2 - Regarding the second question of my FOI, I take from your response that the Met has no centralised record of how any of these operations complied with the PSED and instead compliance is handled by individual units at their own discretion with no centralised oversight. Please advise if this understanding is wrong.

That is correct, there is no central record so attempting to gather this would engage the cost exemption as stated in our previous FOI response to you. Compliance was carried out and by individual units.

Q3 - The third question of my FOI should be easily answerable. For the avoidance of any confusion, I am referring to centrally held documents relating to the operations. Again, the Met has sent me such a document before for another operation (01/FOI/21/019028). If no such overarching document is held centrally, please advise.

Please see the attached 4 redacted strategic plans for each operation requested.

Q4- The fourth question of my FOI should be easily answerable. Either arrest data is held for each operation, or it is not.

ARGO	MPS total
Number of arrests	11

 

WINTER NIGHTS 2021	MPS total
Number of arrests	2,048

 

SCEPTRE- November 2021	MPS total
Number of arrests	937
SCEPTRE- May 2022
Number of arrests	792

 

SUMMER NIGHTS	MPS total
Number of arrests	4,978