Sexual assaults and offences from January 2020 to September 2022

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.027184

I note you seek access to the following information:

I am writing to request the following information for years, 2020, 2021 and September 2022:

1. The number of sexual assaults and offences cases recorded.
2. The number of cases investigated, number of perpetrators charged, prosecuted and or imprisoned.
3. The number of cases that did not see any perpetrator punished.
4. Reasons surrounding the lack of enforcement of laws on perpetrators. Lack of evidence, suspects escape etc.
5. The place where these assaults occurred, in closed doors or in public and wards/boroughs in London.
6. The assaults were by men to women, or other (also indicate).
7. If perpetrator knows victim; marriage/relationship/strangers.
8. The assaults were inflicted by perpetrator from which race to victim of which race.

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) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2) - 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 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.
Details of an investigation could cause an individual to be identified and is therefore exempted in this case.

Section 40(2)(3) - Personal Information - of the Act states that information should be exempt if the question asked constitutes a request for personal information which is not the requestors.

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.

Some of the information sought under your Freedom of Information request includes the following which we consider to be Personal Data

• Low numbers of offences and by ward, outcomes, accused and how known, that could, if disclosed, Identify an individual.

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 Section 58 of the Data Protection Act 2018).

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.

When considering identifiability it should be assumed that the MPS are not looking just at the means reasonably likely to be used by the ordinary person in the street, but also the means that are likely to be used by a determined person with a particular reason to want to identify individuals.
Identified’ does not necessarily mean ‘named’. It can be enough to be able to establish a reliable connection between particular information and a known individual.’

You have asked for the following:

1. The number of sexual assaults and offences cases recorded.
2. The number of cases investigated, number of perpetrators charged, prosecuted and or imprisoned.
3. The number of cases that did not see any perpetrator punished.
4. Reasons surrounding the lack of enforcement of laws on perpetrators. Lack of evidence, suspects escape etc.
5. The place where these assaults occurred, in closed doors or in public and wards/boroughs in London.
6. The assaults were by men to women, or other (also indicate).
7. If perpetrator knows victim; marriage/relationship/strangers.
8. The assaults were inflicted by perpetrator from which race to victim of which race.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement - is engaged in this case as disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention and detection of crimes and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Release would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and strategies and would also hinder any future investigations or review investigations into similar matters.

Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational information into the public domain which would enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to try and map strategies and tactics used by police forces.

Release would have the effect of compromising law enforcement processes and would also hinder the ability of the MPS to fulfil its primary aim of enforcing the law and protecting the public. Any intelligence contained within documents is in use by Officers any release of tactical information could harm our ability to conduct that assessment and reduce our ability to conduct future investigations.

Disclosure would technically be releasing information into the public domain which would enable those with the capacity and inclination to try and use the information to commit crime or evade justice.

Care must be taken to not compromise any strand of an investigation or cause any undue harm to any people or families involved.

The MPS has a duty to protect both witnesses and suspects of criminal investigations and the integrity of tried and tested investigative techniques used now and for future criminal investigations. Therefore, I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested information far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.

The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS with investigations. Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental effect, reducing the quality of information the MPS receives and consequently compromising the effectiveness of any investigation.

The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would inhibit the flow of free and frank discussion, sharing of advice and best practices for investigations between police services. Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental effect on the thoroughness, efficiency and effectiveness of police investigations and ultimately the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.
I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested information far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.

Disclosure

Please find attached a spreadsheet in pursuant to your request for information.

The harm of disclosure is reduced by not providing a full disclosure to information to offences by ward, outcomes, accused and how known. Low numbers have been redacted to reduce the possibility of people being identified within the data.