Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.033137
I note you seek access to the following information:
I would like the Police service record of the following police officers for a research project on the Bomb Squad of the 1970's Commander Roy Habershon DCS James Neville
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)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information
Reason for decision
In respect of the disclosure of the dates Commander Habershon served in the lower ranks between Detective Constable and Detective Superintendent, as well as his warrant number, this information has been refused for release
Section 40(2)(a)(b) - 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.
The MPS Data Office does not hold information that would confirm to the standard required to process personal data under the Act, whether this former officer is currently alive or deceased. The decisions made in connection with this request for information have accordingly given appropriate regard this former officer’s rights as set out by the Data Protection Act 2018. In this regard, I have not disclosed the following information:
1. Promotion dates and periods of service whilst holding a rank below that of Chief Superintendent
2. Warrant number
Have considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:
a. The disclosure of the requested personal data would satisfy legitimate interests in transparency and accountability, given that the personal data relates to an officer’s professional role with the MPS.
b. This disclosure of the requested personal data is necessary to satisfy the legitimate interest identified at point a.
c. Retired police officers that held senior roles would expect that information about rank history whilst holding senior office would be made available to the public. They would not expect however, the MPS to make available and publish information about their promotion and dates when holding more junior ranks. The release and publication of this information would be unexpected and potentially distressing to them. In this regard, I believe that disclosure of this personal data would be likely to cause unwarranted distress to the data subject. The requested personal data has accordingly been withheld from release under this exemption.
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.
Disclosure
In relation to Commander Habershon’s assignment history, I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. This is comprised of the following information:
• Dates serving at the rank of Detective Chief Superintendent and above
The information disclosed in response to your request has been provided in the table below.
Assignment History | |||
Date From | Date To | Organisation | Position |
********** | ********** | MPS Business Group | Detective Constable |
********** | ********** | MPS Business Group | Detective Sergeant |
********** | ********** | MPS Business Group | Detective Inspector |
********** | ********** | MPS Business Group | Detective Chief Inspector |
********** | ********** | MPS Business Group | Detective Superintendent |
01/06/1969 | 31/12/1973 | MPS Business Group | Detective Chief Superintendent |
01/01/1974 | 30/06/1980 | MPS Business Group | Commander |