Section 35 dispersal order

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.034851

I note you seek access to the following information:

A FOI request for the following information;

1. there was a forged closure notice put in place and we would like to see the section 35 dispersal order detail for 55 royal mint street. how would we go about doing that?

AND

2. Can we also request the warrant used for the unlawful entry to the property where innocent people were arrested?

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)(a)(b)(3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) - 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 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (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.

For the Section 35 Dispersal Order and Closure Notice redactions were made as to disclose names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses and details of specific policing tactics and police intelligence could cause an individual to be identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation. This cannot be allowed.

Section 40 Personal Information - 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, names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses, house addresses etc.

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.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement - Disclosure of names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses and details of specific policing tactics and police intelligence risks the identity of the victim/suspect being revealed. This may cause an investigation to collapse as the individual could be targeted, or undermine the confidence in the police.

Disclosure of the information requested could identify persons captured by the scope of this request. Individuals could analyse the information (and along with local knowledge) identify the individual concerned. This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and also prejudice the MPS's ability to fairly conduct an investigation.

The harm identified above, is reduced by not disclosing names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses and details of specific policing tactics and intelligence to ensure the identity of subjects captured by this request is not revealed.

It is imperative that the safety and identity of those captured by this request, or the compromising of the investigation was not a factor, when trying to be transparent in disclosing as much information as possible. The MPS has a duty of care to the communities served. In view of the arguments provided above, it is our opinion, that disclosure in full of names of individuals, phone numbers, email addresses and details of specific policing tactics and police intelligence cannot be permitted.

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

Disclosure

Please see below redacted Section 35 and Closure Notice documents.

There was no search warrant applied for or issued. When serving the notice there is a power of entry that comes as part of the legislation, Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (legislation.gov.uk)