Intelligence relating to plans to disrupt the Coronation

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.030303

I note you seek access to the following information:

REQUEST 1:
The BBC keeps claiming that intelligence was received that suggested people were planning to disrupt the coronation event or its procession. However, I have seen no evidence from the BBC to substantiate its claim.

Q1. Please can you provide, preferably by PDF, a copy of the intelligence that was received by the police.

REQUEST 2:
Q1. Please can you disclose the name of any police system or system used or relied upon by the police that is available to MPS Press Office or else to anyone that they are in contact with during the evenings outside of normal daytime office hours that is able to provide the bail status for example can tell them a specific individual (whoever they may be searching for perhaps in response to media enquiry) has been released on bail but doesn't tell them any charges that they have been charged with or doesn't tell them whether the individual has been charged or not. If this system tells the Press Office, directly or through whomever they contact to interrogate the system, that someone has been released but there is no information as to any charges, is it reasonable to assume this mean the person has been released without charge or would the system specifically say "No charges" or anything similar? In other words the absence of any information of charges does not mean they haven't been charged and the system does store charges so that it should either state the charges or tell us no charges, rather than it being the system does not store charges and can only tell us someone has been released. Why would the Press Office only be able, or only able originally, to tell the media someone has been released on bail but not confirm they have or haven't been charged?

Q2. Please can you also disclose a copy of any communications or any information recorded as to any telephone calls received by Press Office on the evening of 6 May 2023 from LBC. Please disclose any records of any communications being received (recording the fact phone calls were received for example which may or may not record the time the calls were received), or copies of the communications if they are themselves in writing, from LBC by Walworth Police Station, we presume front desk or custody desk, on that evening. Did the Press Office (of if applicable the desk at Walworth) have, on the evening of 6 May, the information that the six people arrested on Coronation morning, including part of a team from Republic, had been released without charge although it only disclosed to LBC release on bail?

Q3. Please disclose a copy of any communications from senior places in the police that decided to use Walworth Police Station to the police in the frontline involved informing them, or was cascaded down and the information may then have been communicated verbally on, of the use of this police station as to where people would be taken and anything else these communications said.

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). The information you have requested for request 1 is exempt from disclosure by virtue of the following exemptions under the Act:

Section 30(1) (a) Criminal Investigations
Section 31(1) (a)(b) Law Enforcement
Section 38 (1) Health and Safety
Section 40(2)(3) Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 30 - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities - under the Act we cannot and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world.

This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals or any possible criminal and/or civil process.

The MPS does not generally disclose information from investigations except through our Directorate of Media & Communication to the media. This is so witnesses for future investigations are not discouraged to come forward and provide statements.

The manner in which investigations are conducted is usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

There is the possibility that a number of cases referenced in any police intelligence released are still ongoing in the justice system.

During the course of any ongoing investigation enquires are made to secure evidence. These enquires are made for the duration of the case and are based upon proven methods as well as the judgement and experience of the officer(s) in charge of the investigation.

The MPS is reliant upon these techniques to conduct its investigations and the public release of the modus operandi employed during an investigation could prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct further, similar investigations.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement - In order for the exemption provided under Section 31(1) to be engaged in this case, the MPS must show that disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice law enforcement functions, namely Section 31(1)(a) the prevention and detection of crimes and Section 31(1)(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

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 police services/forces of the UK are charged with enforcing the law and preventing and detecting crime. Any information released under the Act which reveals investigative strategies and processes including the specific police intelligence received would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Release of police intelligence received for the Kings Coronation event would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and strategies and would also hinder any future investigations or review investigations into similar matters.

It provides significant intelligence which is unlikely to support victims and help prevent crime, but rather could aid offenders by highlighting the type of intelligence the police receive.

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 police forces.

The disclosure of police intelligence to the public by the MPS would undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS with investigations. Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental effect, reducing the quality of information the MPS receives and consequently compromising the effectiveness of any investigation.

I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested information outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.

Section 38 (1) Health and Safety - of the Act provides an exemption from the disclosure of information which would, or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of any individual.

Disclosure of the details within police intelligence received for a high profile public event could provide any person with knowledge of the offences and/or incidents to use the information disclosed to work out who the identification of individuals linked to the matter which may cause those persons much distress and harm. This could compromise the mental health of the person/s.

Disclosure of police intelligence received for the Kings Coronation event could jeopardise the mental state and safety of those persons and persons associated with those persons, identified by the disclosure of information. Such a disclosure will not be in the public interest.

The MPS is tasked with protecting the community we serve and solving crime. There is a public interest argument in ensuring victims of crime are able to come forward and report offences against them, with the confidence of not being identified by information disclosed under the Act. There is no doubt that for the issues outlined above any disclosure relating to information which could reveal the identity of an individual/s or compromise an investigation would not be disclosed.

Section 40 – Personal Information - 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.

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.

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

• Police Intelligence may include individuals names, addresses, email addresses, contact numbers and many other types of personnel information

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 Schedule 19 of the Data Protection Act 2018, specifically Section 58 of that schedule).

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.

It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 30, 31, 38 & 40 to the same pieces of information.

Disclosure

Q1 - Please can you disclose the name of any police system or system used or relied upon by the police that is available to MPS Press Office or else to anyone that they are in contact with during the evenings outside of normal daytime office hours that is able to provide the bail status for example can tell them a specific individual (whoever they may be searching for perhaps in response to media enquiry) has been released on bail but doesn't tell them any charges that they have been charged with or doesn't tell them whether the individual has been charged or not. If this system tells the Press Office, directly or through whomever they contact to interrogate the system, that someone has been released but there is no information as to any charges, is it reasonable to assume this mean the person has been released without charge or would the system specifically say "No charges" or anything similar? In other words the absence of any information of charges does not mean they haven't been charged and the system does store charges so that it should either state the charges or tell us no charges, rather than it being the system does not store charges and can only tell us someone has been released. Why would the Press Office only be able, or only able originally, to tell the media someone has been released on bail but not confirm they have or haven't been charged?

The MPS Press Office have access to Crime Investigation System (CRIS) – the system for recording and investigating recordable crimes, Copa (the system for compiling a case for court) and Connect (a new IT system that is intended to replace CRIS and COPA) but press lines are usually signed off by the officer in charge of the case or in the case of a major event, the Gold Commander.

Please note that someone who is released on bail has not been charged.

Q2 - Please can you also disclose a copy of any communications or any information recorded as to any telephone calls received by Press Office on the evening of 6 May 2023 from LBC. Please disclose any records of any communications being received (recording the fact phone calls were received for example which may or may not record the time the calls were received), or copies of the communications if they are themselves in writing, from LBC by Walworth Police Station, we presume front desk or custody desk, on that evening. Did the Press Office (of if applicable the desk at Walworth) have, on the evening of 6 May, the information that the six people arrested on Coronation morning, including part of a team from Republic, had been released without charge although it only disclosed to LBC release on bail?

The only records we have of any communication with LBC was an email received by the press office was from LBC on the 6 May and was the following;
'Hi, I'm a producer for Andrew Castle on LBC and would like to invite a spokesperson on the show tomorrow morning.
We will be discussing police conduct during the coronation celebrations.
Many Thanks.'

Q3 - Please disclose a copy of any communications from senior places in the police that decided to use Walworth Police Station to the police in the frontline involved informing them, or was cascaded down and the information may then have been communicated verbally on, of the use of this police station as to where people would be taken and anything else these communications said.

Deciding which police station an arrested individual taken to is a decision made at an operational level – it is not made at a senior level so there are no communications in this respect.