Applications submitted by the MPS for judicial reviews on a gross misconduct verdict

 

I note you seek access to the following information:

 

Please provide the following for between 2016 up to the latest data available, broken down by calendar year and financial year (if only one of these is available, please provide this only): 

 

1. The number of applications submitted by your force for judicial reviews on a gross misconduct verdict presided over by a Legally Qualified Chair 

2. The cost of these judicial review to the force 

3. The case number for each application 

4. The original outcome of the verdict of the gross misconduct hearing you sought to have reviewed 

5. The outcome of the judicial review 

 

If any of this triggers an exemption, we would request you contact us and allow us to refine or reword our request following advice and assistance, as described under Section 16 of the FOI Act. 

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)&(3) (Personal Information)

 

 

In regards to questions 3 to 5, the requested information contains personal information which is exempt from disclosre.

 

                

The Directorate of Legal Services case files contain court documents and communications between DLS, the client and counsel, which contain the details requested.

 

If a copy of relevant court records and/or any judgments were made public, To provide this information could lead to the identification of individual officers.  See the following link for more information:

 

Supply of documents from court records – general  

 

Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information - Section 40(2)(a)(b) 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 your request, I have found that the information requested contains a range of personal data, namely that of witnesses and police officers. Having given regard to the legitimate interest in respect of each person’s personal data, I have found that:

 

a. The requested documents contain personal criminal offence data. 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.

 

a. There is a general public interest in setting out how public servants conduct their business. There is accordingly a legitimate interest in disclosing the names of the police officers/staff members involved in this investigation.

 

b. The disclosure of this information is necessary to meet the legitimate interest identified at point a above.

 

c. In this case, the release of the names of the police officers/staff involved in this investigation would be unexpected, unfair and distressing to them, on the basis that they would not reasonably expect their names to be published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. In this regard, the disclosure of this personal data would constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to privacy of the data subject(s) and be likely to cause unwarranted harm to them.

 

a. There is a general expectation that the identities of those that assist police in a criminal investigation remain confidential. I have not identified a legitimate interest in disclosing the names of witnesses or persons that have assisted the police in connection with a criminal investigation.

 

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. 

 

 

Please find attached and below information pursuant to your request above.

 

 

A search of the Directorate of Legal Services case management system has identified 7 cases where an application for Judicial Review has been made by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in relation to gross misconduct verdicts in the period 1 January 2016 – 14 August 2023.  This may be as a direct result of the gross misconduct verdict or an appeal against a previous Judicial Review decision.

 

 

It is not possible to provide a full picture of the costs incurred by the Directorate of Legal Services (DLS) relating to these 7 Judicial Review cases.

 

Information not held.  Basic costs such as facilities, eg, stationery, etc, are not recorded on a granular level.  In relation to staff costs, a number of in-house staff may have completed work associated with the case, including say Admin Assistants.  Fee earners (our lawyers and paralegals) are the only ones who record the time they spend working on each case.  We can supply the total amount of time spent on cases by those fee earners, but it is not possible to provide the cost of that time without calculating it using the Met’s Ready Reckoner.  Therefore the cost of Directorate of Legal Services fee earners is not information that is ‘held’, as we would have to create information to answer the question.

 

It is possible for DLS to provide costs incurred in relation to external counsel and miscellaneous costs. 

 

The total recorded costs for all 7 Judicial Review cases is £57,836.35 (excl VAT*). 

* The MPS is a Section 33 public body for VAT purposes and thus allowed to recover Input Tax on all expenditure subject to certain conditions.

Definitions
External Costs	Counsel Costs paid to Counsel outside of the MPS
Miscellaneous Costs	Costs, eg, Court Fees

 

Under Section 16 of the Act, there is a duty to advise and assist applicants in making requests for information.  The below links may be of interest to you: