All organisations and community groups represented on your VAWG panel

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.031576

I note you seek access to the following information:

Please provide the following information:
1. All organisations and community groups represented on your VAWG panel
2. All individuals and the organisations they represent, that sit on your VAWG panel
3. Minutes of all VAWG panel meetings or link to access these - for 2022 to current date
4. All organisations and community groups on any hate crime advisory panels
5. All individuals and the organisations they represent, that sit on any hate crime advisory panels
6. All organisations and community groups that sit on any Independent advisory groups
7. All individuals and the organisations they represent, that sit on any independent advisory groups

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)(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)(3)&(4) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can be answered. The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement - In this case, this exemption has been applied as disclosure of the information requested would prejudice areas within law enforcement such as the detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

The MPS is charged with enforcing the law and preventing and detecting crime. Any information released under the Act which reveals information related to the gathering of intelligence and police strategies and tactics would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Release would have the effect of compromising law enforcement processes and would also hinder the ability of the MPS to fulfil its primary aim of enforcing the law and protecting the public.

Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational information into the public domain which would enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to try and map strategies and tactics used by the MPS and possibly counter them, or become an intrusive hindrance to anyone involved in those meetings, which in turn would cost the MPS time in investigating intrusions and could make people less likely to come forward as witnesses or engage with the MPS.

The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would undermine public trust in the MPS. Release of all information would allow those wishing to disrupt police operations to use the information to assist in evading detection should they be planning any unlawful acts.

Section 40 – Personal Information - Details of an investigation could cause an individual to be identified and is therefore exempted in this case.

Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is Personal Data.

The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption.

Some of the information sought under your Freedom of Information request includes the following which we consider to be Personal Data

• Names of people, that could, if disclosed, identify an individual.

Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data the section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.

In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3A, 3B and 4A of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as amended by Section 58 of the Data Protection Act 2018).

The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.

There are six Data Protection principles set out in the 2018 act and these can be found at section 34.

In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which states that the processing (in this case the disclosure) of the data must be both lawful and fair.

Disclosure

Regarding questions 1, 2 and 3 -
Q1 - All organisations and community groups represented on your VAWG panel
Q2 - All individuals and the organisations they represent, that sit on your VAWG panel
Q3 - Minutes of all VAWG panel meetings or link to access these - for 2022 to current date

The MPS is in the process of developing a VAWG panel. The MPS response is No Information held.

Regarding questions 4 and 5 -
Q4 - All organisations and community groups on any hate crime advisory panels
Q5 - All individuals and the organisations they represent, that sit on any hate crime advisory panels

Individuals who sit on hate crime advisory panels for CPS (not MPS) have been targeted by certain groups and received negativity via the press. If we allow that for MPS groups we will have community groups and charities refuse to work with us. So for operational reasons I do not believe this should be shared.

We do not share personal data on members of the public who sit on Independent Advisory Groups and we do not record all the organisations they represent or disclose this (as it may mean they are then identifiable). We have to maintain confidentiality in order to maintain operational effectiveness of these groups or individuals would not volunteer to work with us. They are independent groups.

Regarding questions 6 and 7 -
Q6 - All organisations and community groups that sit on any Independent advisory groups
Q7 - All individuals and the organisations they represent, that sit on any independent advisory groups

In terms of advisory groups – there are MANY across the MPS. We don’t keep a central register of people on them or if they represent other groups/organisations. So fundamentally we don’t keep this data in a way that can be shared.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Regarding any further information in relation to questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 the MPS has applied the following exemptions:
Section 31(a)(b) - Law Enforcement
Section 40 (2)(3) - Personal Information

Constituents of this information attract Section 31 and other constituents Section 40 of the Act.

It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 31 & 40 to the same pieces of information.