Casey Report and PaDP sexual offences stats - CC3 Casey Cell Enquiry

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.029462

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. What action are you taking to shine light on the "dark corner" identified in the Casey report?

2. How many officers have you dismissed from the PaDP Command for rape and sexual abuse since 2020?

3. Do you have any registered sex offenders working within the PaDP Command?

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 40(2) - Personal Information
Section 40(5) - Personal Information – NCND (Neither Confirm Nor Deny)

Reason for decision

A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because, under Freedom of Information, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world and not just to one individual.

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

Question 2. How many officers have you dismissed from the PaDP Command for rape and sexual abuse since 2020?

S40(2) – I have applied this exemption in that the data returned low figures that could identify individuals.
If this occurs due to the information provided by the MPS, constitutes personal data, which would be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.
The request constitutes criminal offence data and special category data.

Reasonable expectations - Police Officers would have an expectation that information about convictions made against them, including whether or not any complaints have been made, would not be disclosed, even without any specific notification of this. The information you request is classed as sensitive personal data.

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

Personal Criminal Offence Data - Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

a. The Information Commissioner (the ombudsman for the Act) guidance on the release of personal criminal offence data under the Act states:

‘Due to its sensitivity, the conditions for processing criminal offence data are very restrictive and generally concern specific, stated purposes. Consequently, only two are relevant to allow you to lawfully disclose under FOIA or the EIR. They are similar to those identified above for special category data. These are:

• consent from the data subject; or
• the processing relates to personal data which has clearly been made public by the individual concerned.

If a relevant condition cannot be met, you must not disclose the information as disclosure would be unlawful and therefore in contravention of principle (a).’

The conditions required to release personal criminal offence data are not present in this case. The release of the requested personal data does not accordingly satisfy a legitimate interest and cannot be disclosed under the Act.

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.

Question 3. Do you have any registered sex offenders working within the PaDP Command?

S40(5) - This request attracts an NCND response, as to confirm or deny that information is held prevents disclosure. To confirm or deny whether personal information exists in response to your request could publicly reveal information about an individual or individuals, thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR).

In addition, Section 40(5) is engaged as to confirm or deny whether any individual(s) was investigated for a specific crime would be disclosing personal information.

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.

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.

Please note that this notice does not confirm nor deny that the MPS hold the information that you have requested.

Disclosure

Q1 - What action are you taking to shine light on the "dark corner" identified in the Casey report?

In response to Baroness Casey’s report the Commissioner of the Met wrote to Baroness Casey to set out our initial reflections and response. This letter sets out how the Met will take time to consider Baroness Casey’s recommendations. Specifically on armed Commands the Commissioner set out:
“At the core of your review is an examination of the damaging parts of the culture of the Met. You have rightly praised the many hard working, brave and diligent people that serve London. You have also shone a light on experiences of individuals that are deeply troubling and on parts of this organisation where there are deep-seated cultures that have become the norm and have not been robustly challenged.

You have found that some of the most concerning examples of these cultures exist in specialist units, such as our firearms teams, where the closed nature of teams and their isolation from the rest of the organisation has allowed unacceptable behaviours to become ingrained.
These are also areas of the Met that lag behind in terms of diversity and representation and the correlation between these characteristics and the cultural concerns found require serious reflection.

We take your findings in this area incredibly seriously. They will inform and accelerate the work that is already ongoing in relation to specific parts of the Met, such as the review of our Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command.”