Redacted Intelligence Reports Processing SOP

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.041054

I note you seek access to the following information:

I write to make a further request, specifically for the information described below:

Additionally, I can confirm that the MPS has collated and can accordingly consider the following information for release:

• Intelligence Reports Processing Standard Operating Procedure document.

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 17(1) - Refusal Notice
Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information
Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement

I have disclosed the Intelligence Reports Processing Standard Operating Procedure document in redacted format, that is, I have removed the following information:

• Names of MPS employees below particular grades/ranks
• The email address of the Sensitive Intelligence Unit

The redactions made are denoted with black boxes (i.e. Example).

Reason for decision

Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information - Section 40(2)(a)(b) of the Act provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles.
There are six principles that are set out in Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) that dictate when the processing of personal data is lawful. The first principle requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

a. There is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of that personal data.
b. The disclosure of the personal data is necessary to meet that legitimate interest.
c. The disclosure would not cause unwarranted harm to the data subject.

Names of MPS Members of Staff

The requested document contains the names of persons holding the rank of Superintendent and below and Band A and below. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

a. The employees holding the rank of Superintendent and below (for police officers) and/or Band A and below (for police staff), are unlikely to expect their names to be published in response to this Freedom of Information Act request. Given their roles and level of responsibility within the MPS, I have not identified a legitimate interest that would be satisfied in disclosing their personal data in response to this request for information.

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - Section 31(1)(a) of the Act provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

The release and publication of the email address of the Sensitive Intelligence Unit, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of these organisations, with information that would assist them to do so. In this regard, a person with this intent would be likely to use this information to make inappropriate contact with these organisations and/or their employees, sending them vast quantities of unsolicited correspondence. This would tie up the resources of these organisations/employees causing disruption. This would directly hinder the prevention and/or detection of crime.

When considering whether the release of information is in the public interest, I have to consider whether the public interest is in favour of releasing information into the public domain or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding the requested information. Having considered your request, I accept that there is a public interest in transparency when any request is made for police information. The public interest favouring release must be balanced against any associated risk and/or prejudice that would be caused by disclosure. Having carefully considered this, I have found that that the public release of the email address of the Sensitive Intelligence Unit, would provide persons intent on causing disruption, with information that would assist them in this endeavour. Given this and the fact that the removal of this information does not detract from the quality of the records being disclosed, I have found that the release of this information is not in the public interest. For the reasons set out above, I have not released some information that is captured by your request for information.

Disclosure

Please find below a redacted Intelligence Reports Processing Standard Operating Procedure document.