Arrests of ULEZ camera vandalism since 2019

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.035679

I note you seek access to the following information:

I would like to receive information regarding ULEZ camera vandalism.

Specifically, I would like to know, breaking down on a yearly basis, since 2019:
1. How many people have been arrested and charged with vandalising ULEZ camera's?
2. How many police hours have been spent tracking down people responsible for vandalising ULEZ cameras?
3. How much money has been spent tracking down and arresting individuals suspected of vandalising ULEZ cameras?

Clarification -
Could you please narrow down question 1 to ask for people proceeded against (PPA)

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 30(1)(a)(i) – Investigations
Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

I note that you have asked us to disclose the number of people who have been arrested and proceeded against (PPA) for criminal damage to ULEZ cameras since 2019 broken down by year.

I have made the decision to disclose the information you are seeking at your question 1, however, due to extremely low figures when broken down by year I am unable to provide the data broken down to this level of granularity as this could identify specific investigations and individuals concerned. Any such disclosure would cause harm to any ongoing cases and would release sensitive information about individuals into the public domain. This would be unfair as those individuals would not expect to be identified in response to a Freedom of Information Act request and would also be illegal as it would be in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018(DPA) and General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

For the above reasons, Section 30(1)(a)(i) of the Act which provides an exemption for information relating to investigations, and Section 40(2)(3A)(a) of the Act, which provides an exemption for personal information, have both been applied to refuse disclosure.

Section 30(1)(a)(i) – investigations - Disclosing the number of arrests and persons proceeded against, for criminal damage to ULEZ cameras, broken down by year, would identify specific investigations. Whilst this information may not in itself seem harmful, disclosure could prejudice the prosecution of offenders, and the right of individuals to a fair trial which would compromise our law enforcement investigative functions.

There is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the MPS is appropriately and effectively dealing with criminal activity.

However, there is also a strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations, by not releasing information that could hinder investigations and prejudice the outcome of any legal proceedings.

In order to ensure that confidence is maintained in the MPS, it is my opinion that the balance test favours non-disclosure to the granularity you are seeking.

Section 40(2)(3A)(a) - Personal information - Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would identify any living individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). I have applied this exemption in that the identity of individuals that may be realised through providing information broken down by year, would constitute personal data which, if released, would be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.

The six principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that providing information that identifies individuals constitutes personal data. The release of this information would be unfair as the persons concerned would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly available.

In reaching my decision, I have, in each case, given due regard to the condition at Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(e) of the GDPR. Condition one of the GDPR requires that consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that consideration is given to performance of a public task in the public interest.

Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is present or would likely be received to release this information.

Disclosure

I would like to receive information regarding ULEZ camera vandalism. Could you please provide the information in either Excel form or in a PDF form depending on appropriateness of data. Specifically, I would like to know, breaking down on a yearly basis, since 2019:

Q1 - How many people have been arrested and proceeded against for vandalising ULEZ camera's?

Q2 - How many police hours have been spent tracking down people responsible for vandalising ULEZ cameras?
Q3 - How much money has been spent tracking down and arresting individuals suspected of vandalising ULEZ cameras?

Please be advised that no information is held in relation to your questions 2 and 3 above. Investigating crime is considered routine police work and the time and costs of this work are therefore not collated or calculated.