Officers dismissed due to misconduct and reinstated after dismissal
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.033567
I note you seek access to the following information:
1. The number of police officers who have been dismissed by the Metropolitan Police as the result of a misconduct hearing in each of the past three years (2020, 2021, 2022).
2. Of those officers dismissed for misconduct in each of the past three years, how many have successfully appealed and been reinstated to the police force?
3. For those officers reinstated after dismissal for misconduct, please provide details on:
• The nature of the original misconduct offense
• The length of time between dismissal and reinstatement
• The rank of the reinstated officer
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)(a)(b) - Personal Information
Reason for decision
Question 3 I have exempted this owing to S.40 of the Freedom of Information Act governing personal information.
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. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b) and 3B of the Act.
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 release of information relating to the nature of the original misconduct offense, the length of time between dismissal and reinstatement and the rank of the reinstated officer of the 5 officers I have found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that:
a) The disclosure of this information would show the MPS is committed to being transparent.
a. The legitimate reason would be met via this disclosure.
b. However, due to the low figures to comply with your FOIA request risks the identification of the officer. Personal information is not limited to the name of an individual. GDPR describes personal information as:
“personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person”
To release the rank of the these 5 officers would lead to identification. At any given rank within the MPS there would be a certain amount of officers allocated to each rank aand in this case to provide the rank and position would significantly narrow down the pool of officers from where identification can be made and thereby heighten the chances of identification.
As such the disclosure of the requested personal data is not necessary to satisfy the legitimate interest. The legitimate interests that have been identified above have been met by there being formal misconduct procedures which are overseen by the IOPC
Relesing the rank into the public domain would cause unwarranted harm to the officer concerned. 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 the Act, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, not just to an individual. The misconduct of the officer has been dealt with and any further details subsequently released would likely lead to unwanted and unsolicited intrusion. As such in this regard, I believe that disclosure of this personal data would be likely to cause unwarranted harm.
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
Q1 - The number of police officers who have been dismissed by the Metropolitan Police as the result of a misconduct hearing in each of the past three years (2020, 2021, 2022).
| Officer Count | Years | |||
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | Grand Total | |
| Total | 32 | 36 | 39 | 107 |
Q2 - Of those officers dismissed for misconduct in each of the past three years, how many have successfully appealed and been reinstated to the police force?
| Officer Count | Years | |||
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | Grand Total | |
| Total | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |