Corres between the MPS and Fusus

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.031412

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. Can you confirm if you have been in communication with the US based company Fusus (https://www.fusus.com/) and whether they have approached you to sell their products

2. If so, can I see those communications such as emails, meeting minutes and any other related documents that show communication between the Met and Fusus and could I see any documents or emails that name Fusus

3. Do the Met have any plans to buy products from Fusus or similar companies to build a Real-Time Crime Centre or Fusion Centre, if so can I see them

4. Have the Met spoken to local authorities in London about using their CCTV and other infrastructure for the development of a Real-Time Crime Centre or Fusion Centre

Clarification - I refused your request for information. In doing so, I explained that complying with your request for information would exceed the 18 hour research/cost exemption of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

You submitted the following revised request for information:

“As per your reply to my original request, under the FOI Act could I please see the communications between Fusus and the Met you refer to in the ‘duty to advise and assist’ section.”

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)(a) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information
Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests

Reason for decision

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - of the Act provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

I have claimed this exemption in that the requested records contain the contact details of MPS, Fusus, Axon and other law enforcement agencies. This information would, if released and published on the MPS website, provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, Fusus, Axon and other law enforcement agencies, with information that would assist them in this endeavour.

Disruption to the Work of Senior Members of Staff - The release and publication of the contact details of employees of the MPS, Fusus, Axon and other law enforcement agencies, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of these organisations, with information that would assist them to do so. In this regard, a person within this intent would be likely to use this information to make inappropriate contact with employees of these organisations and/or send them vast quantities of unsolicited correspondence. This would disrupt the work of these members of staff and cause disruption to the work of the MPS, Fusus, Axon and other law enforcement agencies, hindering their ability to prevent and detect crime.

Evaluation - I have to have considered your request, I accept that there is a public interest in transparency when any request is made for police information. The public interest favouring release must be balanced against any associated risk and/or prejudice that would be caused through disclosure.

Having carefully considered this, I have found that the public release and publication of the contact details of employees of the MPS, Fusus, Axon and other law enforcement agencies, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of these organisations, with information that would assist them in this endeavour. Given this and the fact that the removal of this information does not detract from the quality of the records disclosed, I have found that the release of this information is not in the public interest.

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.

Names of MPS Members of Staff - The requested emails contains the names of MPS employees holding the rank of Band A (or shadow Band S) and below. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

a. The employees holding the rank of Band A (or shadow Band S) and below, are unlikely to expect their names to be published in response to this Freedom of Information Act request. Given their roles and level of responsibility within the MPS, I have not identified a legitimate interest that would be satisfied in disclosing their personal data in response to this request for information.

Employment History of Fusus Employee - The requested emails contains the employment history of a Fusus employee. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have not identified a legitimate interest that would be satisfied in disclosing their personal data in response to this request for information.

Signatures of MPS, Axon and Fusus Employees - The requested documents, namely the non-disclosure agreement between the MPS and Fusus and a letter from Axon to the MPS, contain the signatures of an MPS employee, and Axon employee and the CEO of Fusus. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of the release of this personal data, I have found that:

a. The disclosure of the signature of an MPS employee, an employee of Axon and the CEO of Fusus, would demonstrate that they endorsed the non-disclosure agreement in February 2023 and the letter from Axon to the MPS of December 2022.

b. Signatures are a unique personal identifier that are used by individuals in all aspects of their personal lives. The disclosure of the signature of an MPS employee, an Axon employee and the CEO of Fusus, is not necessary to meet the legitimate interest identified at point a, as the place in which these signatures were present, is evident within the disclosed records. It is accordingly clear that the signatures of an MPS employee, an Axon employee and the CEO of Fusus were present within the requested records.

Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests - provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person. I have claimed Section 43(2) of the Act in that some of the information held by the MPS would, if released, reveal information that would prejudice the commercial interests of Fusus, Axon and the MPS.

Fusus and Axon are commercial entities. The MPS, in seeking to establish whether any information relevant to this request is commercially sensitive, has written to Fusus and Axon. Both have in turn, considered the information held by the MPS and set out their position in respect of any commercially sensitive information. The MPS has considered the representations of Fusus and Axon and given due regard to their submissions when determining whether the information requested should be withheld under the Act. The MPS has also considered whether the release of any information it holds would prejudice its own commercial interests. The MPS considers that to release information that would be harmful to the commercial interests of any person/party is unlikely to be in the public interest.

In deciding whether to claim the Commercial Interests exemption (Section 43) of the Act, I have considered whether the public interest lies in favour of releasing the information requested or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding it. Having considered the requested information for release, I acknowledge that there is public interest inherent in transparency when a request for information has been received. This public interest must be balanced against any identified risk. In this case, Fusus, Axon and the Met’s Commercial Services Department have been consulted and have explained how the commercial interests of each organisation would be prejudiced through the public disclose of information contained within a number of specified records. Having considered the opposing public interest factors, I accept that the public interest does not support releasing information that would be prejudicial to the commercial interests of Fusus, Axon or the MPS. I have found this position to be particularly clear in the case of Fusus, given that the MPS has no current business relationship with this company.

\Disclosure would not accordingly, show how public money has been spent or provide insight into an existing MPS business relationship. For this reason, I have refused to release information that is commercially sensitive to Fusus. I have also found that it is not in the public interest to release information that would prejudice the commercial interests of Axon or the MPS.

Disclosure

Following receipt of your request for information, I have located 19 emails and 5 attachments that are relevant to your request for information. The attached records are:

1. Fusus Support For The MPS Turnaround Plan More Trust.
2. Annual Subscription Price Fusus RTC3 Platform.
3. Letter from Chief Legal Officer of Axon to MPS.
4. The RTCC RFP Requirements.
5. Non-Disclosure Agreement.

I have disclosed the 19 emails and attachment 3 in redacted format, that is, I have removed information that I consider to be exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). A series of asterisks (i.e. ***************) denote where exempt material has been redacted. Attachment 1, 4 and 5 has been withheld in their entirety under the Act.

The following provisions of the Act have been claimed in redacting/withholding this information:

• Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement
• Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information
• Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests

DUTY TO ADVISE AND ASSIST
Under Section 16 of the Act, there is a duty to advise and assist those that have made, or intend to make, a request for information. In accordance with this duty, I can confirm that the MPS proactively publishes all disclosures made in response to requests made under the Act on its Publication Scheme. I have provided a link to this section of the MPS website below.

MPS Publication Scheme

The MPS Publication Scheme can be searched using keywords and may accordingly hold other information that is of interest to you.