Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.036372
I note you seek access to the following information:
I would like to receive this information in the form of an email reply. If this request is too wide or unclear, I would be grateful if you could contact me as I understand that under the Act you are required to advise and assist requesters. If any of this information is already in the public domain, please can you direct me to it, with page references and URLs if necessary. I understand that you are required to respond to my request within the 20 working days after you receive this letter. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request.
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 24(2) - National Security
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement
Reason for decision
I will disclose the answer to question 1 under the section titled Disclosure. However, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information in relation to question 2. The duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Act does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 24(2) - National Security - By confirming or denying whether any information is held would render policing and security measures less effective. This would also reveal the intelligence picture held by the MPS in relation to threats to the public.
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement - Threats can be domestic (made from within the UK) or international, including malicious state-actors who might target specific ethnic and religious groups living in the UK. If the MPS were to confirm or deny if information is held in response to question this would reveal who has or has not been in receipt of such warnings. Data about differing groups of individuals, when coupled with other information in the public domain, risks revealing the intelligence picture further. Spikes in data about threats to specific nationalities, ethnicities or religious groups would also be useful information to those who take an interest in understanding what the MPS do or do not know, which ultimately does not support us in undertaking law enforcement activity.
The MPS would not want to confirm or deny if information is held which would compromise and significantly weaken our ability to effectively deal with law enforcement. Let’s also consider if the MPS were to receive a series of FOIA requests seeking information about ethnic groups, nationalities or religious groups that we hold no information about. This would present a real risk that via a mosaic effect there would be an increase in fear within specific ethnic and religious groups.
Whilst FOI exists to allow for greater transparency and public debate, when weighing up the public interest arguments I find it incompatible to reveal the intelligence picture held by the MPS, as this would not be in the public interest.
In part you have sought ‘how many Threat to Life notices were given to : Sikhs Those whose ethnicity/”ethnic appearance” was logged as “Indian” Those whose ethnicity/”ethnic appearance” was logged as “Asian”. In conducting a public interest test I have presented two opposing arguments for and against confirming or denying whether any information is held in relation to your request. I have found that if the MPS were to confirm or deny whether any information is held this would make public who has or has not been in receipt of such warnings. This would reinforce the MPS’s commitment to transparency.
However, I believe these factors are outweighed by the compelling argument that to confirm or deny whether any information is held would reveal the MPS intelligence picture on such threats, irrespective of whether any information is held or not held. Importantly, this could also equip those who take an interest in understanding what the MPS do or do not know, to build up a picture on what is held. This directly harms the ability of the MPS to prevent and detect crime, which is the primary function of the MPS and so would be highly detrimental and counterproductive to our aims. It is for this overriding factor that I have refused this part of your request and will not confirm or deny whether any information is held in relation to question 2.
Disclosure
Q1 - Please provide the number of Threats to Life Warning Notices, (commonly referred to as ‘Osman warnings’) that the force has issued in the following calendar years: 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023
YEAR | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
Total Warning Notices | 247 | 210 | 159 | 141 | 192 |
Q2 - If possible, for each of those years, how many Threat to Life notices were given to : Sikhs Those whose ethnicity/”ethnic appearance” was logged as “Indian” Those whose ethnicity/”ethnic appearance” was logged as “Asian”
The MPS can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds this information. Please see the Reason for decision, for an explanation on the exemptions applied.