Reports of drones being flown in restricted airspace from June 2020 to June 2023
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.031237
I note you seek access to the following information:
My request is regarding reports of drones being flown in restricted airspace.
For each of the last three years (27 June 2020 – 26 June 2021, 27 June 2021 – 26 June 2022 and 27 June 2022 – 26 June 2023) can you please provide the following information:
1) How many reports did the Metropolitan Police receive of drones illegally operating within the restricted airspace around Heathrow Airport?
2) How many reports did the Metropolitan Police receive of drones illegally operating within the restricted airspace around London City Airport?
3) How many arrests were made as a result of reports for both 1 and 2?
4) What other action was taken in respect of 1 and 2 such as fines/drone equipment being confiscated?
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
In addition, the Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny whether any other information is held relevant to this request, as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) - Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security bodies
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement
Reason for decision
To provide data on the number of arrests and the action taken in regards to reports received of drones illegally operating within the restricted airspace around Heathrow and London City Airports would allow those with a criminal intent to undermine our policing capabilities at these airports, if figures were perceived to be low in comparison to Questions 1 and 2. This would potentially lead to disruption to both airports and endanger air travel, and therefore result in an increase in criminal activity. As such, Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Act is engaged.
Section 31 - Law Enforcement - 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.
Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, providing data on arrests and action taken in comparison to the number of reported illegal drones operating within the restricted airspace at both airports would allow criminals or those who seek to disrupt air travel with the opportunity to compromise our law enforcement functions. This information has the potential to be used to the advantage of criminal organisations or extremists. Information that might undermine our operational integrity will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on law enforcement. Public safety would be put at risk if criminals and terrorists used this information to target our airports with increased drone usage due to a perception of a lack of action or arrest.
The use of drones is a rapidly developing technique, which can be used by the police service as a whole in a variety of ways to combat crime, but also by individuals to undertake criminal activity. To disclose the requested data could be used to their advantage when planning criminal acts. This would therefore both directly and indirectly impact on the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals and increase the fear of crime in the community the police service seeks to serve.
The public expect police forces to use all powers and tactics to prevent and detect crime and maintain public safety. The disclosure of any information which allows criminal activity to flourish and hinders the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the possible apprehension and prosecution of an offender cannot be in the public interest.
Disclosure of the requested information would compromise law enforcement by assisting those with a criminal intent to draw a comparison between reports and arrests. Any figures perceived to be low would potentially cause an increase in illegal drone activity and lead to aircraft endangerment and signification travel disruption.
If the above were to occur through the release of this data, individuals would be placed at risk and as such, would require an increase in police resources at a cost to the public purse.
The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may compromise the service's ability to accomplish its core function of law enforcement.
The points above highlight the considerations for disclosure and non-disclosure. After weighing up the competing interests, I consider the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. To disclose this information would have a direct effect on MPS resources and its ability to operate effectively and efficiently and could be manipulated by those with criminal intent to operate in those areas. This could be used to hinder our ability to detect crime and apprehend offenders.
In addition the Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm or deny whether it holds any further information relevant to this request as the duty in Section 1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23 - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters - (5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) which was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).
Section 24 - National Security & Section 31 - Law Enforcement - As has previously been stated disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying that any further information is held regarding reports of drones illegally operating within the restricted airspace of either Heathrow or London City airport, would identify to criminals whether or not the police have used tactical capabilities. This would allow them to understand whether specific operations had taken place and thus to divert their activities to other areas of the UK.
Confirming or denying whether not any reports exist which relate to the deployment of drones by the police service, would lead to an increase of harm to investigations and compromise law enforcement. This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.
Criminals and terrorist use a variety of methods to conduct their activities and as such, the threat from terrorism cannot be ignored. It is generally recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. Since 2006, the UK Government have published the threat level based upon current intelligence. The UK continues to face a sustained threat from violent extremists and terrorists and the current UK threat level international terrorism, based on intelligence, is ‘substantial’, which means that a terrorist attack is likely.
Similarly it is well established that police forces use various tactics and surveillance to gain intelligence in order to counteract criminal behaviour. It has been previously documented in the media that many terrorist incidents have been thwarted due to intelligence gained by these means.
Confirming or denying that any other information is held in relation to the reporting of illegal use of drones in restricted airspace at these airports, would limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists would gain a greater understanding of the police forces’ methods and techniques, enabling them to take steps to counter them. It may also suggest the limitations of police capabilities in this area, which may further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by exposing potential vulnerabilities. This detrimental effect is increased if the request is made to several different law enforcement bodies. In addition to the local criminal fraternity now being better informed, those intent on organised crime throughout the UK will be able to ‘map’ where the use of certain tactics are or are not deployed. This can be useful information to those committing crimes. It would have the likelihood of identifying location-specific operations which would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and future prosecutions as criminals could counteract the measures used against them.
Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.
By confirming or denying whether any further information is held would render Security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
Confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding reports made to the MPS would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and would also hinder any future investigations. In addition, confirming or denying methods used to gather intelligence for an investigation would prejudice that investigation and any possible future proceedings.
It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and terrorists and so to confirm or deny any further information is held would lead to law enforcement being undermined. The Police Service is reliant upon all manner of techniques during operations and the public release of any modus operandi employed, if held, would prejudice the ability of the Police Service to conduct similar investigations.
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. The Police Service would not wish to reveal what tactics may or may not have been used to gain intelligence as this would clearly undermine the law enforcement and investigative process. This would impact on police resources and more crime and terrorist incidents would be committed, placing individuals at risk. It can be argued that there are significant risks associated with providing information, if held, in relation to any aspect of investigations or of any nation's security arrangements so confirming or denying that any other information is held, may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we may be trying to protect.
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge whether any other information is or is not held regarding reports of the illegal operation of drones within a designated area if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk, undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and all areas of operations carried out by police forces throughout the UK.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The use of drones in specific circumstances are a sensitive issue that would reveal police tactics and therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any further information is held is not made out.
However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.
Disclosure
In relation to Question 1, please find below the number of reports received of drones illegally operating within the restricted airspace around Heathrow Airport by the Metropolitan Police.
• 27/06/2020 - 26/06/2021 = 232
• 27/06/2021 - 26/06/2022 = 183
• 27/06/2022 - 26/06/2023 = 299
For Question 2, how many reports did the Metropolitan Police receive of drones illegally operating within the restricted airspace around London City Airport?
Please find below data for London City Airport.
• 27/06/2020 - 26/06/2021 = 14
• 27/06/2021 - 26/06/2022 = 20
• 27/06/2022 - 26/06/2023 = 23