Complaints against officers MO19 Specialist Firearms Command from 2018 to 2023

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.033007

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. Please provide the number of complaints made about officers in the MO19 Specialist Firearms Command in each of the last five years

2. Please provide details of the action taken following complaints against officers in the MO19 command in each of the last five years, including the details of the complaint, whether it was made by a member of the public or internally, and also the outcomes.

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 40(2)(3) - Personal Information
Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement

Reason for decision

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.

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 (DPA) 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The exemption has been applied as disclosure of the information you have requested could identify living individuals. Disclosure of personal information at such low numbers greatly increases the risk of identification (as well as misidentification) of specific individuals. The special category data is so low in numbers in respect of individuals that it would constitute personal data which would, if released, would be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.

‘Special category data’ is personal data about an individual’s race, ethnic origin, politics, religion, trade union membership, genetics, biometrics (where used for ID purposes); health, sex life or sexual orientation”, as defined in the ICO guidance.

For disclosure to be lawful, a condition for processing must be met, and in this case they are not where the data could allow for local level identification. Due to the data’s’ sensitivity, the conditions for processing special category data are restrictive. In this case there has been no explicit consent for the disclosure of the data that is low level enough for identification to be possible.

The Act is designed to place information into the public domain. Therefore, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered to be public information and must be communicated to any individual upon request. In accordance with this principle, the MPS adopts an applicant and motive blind approach when responding to requests for information and routinely publishes information disclosed under the Act on the MPS Internet. Therefore any information disclosed under FOIA is not just a disclosure to the requestor but to the world.

You are reminded that requests under the Act are applicant blind and as such we do not know the motives of the applicant. Any disclosure would not be solely to you and therefore the information requested could be used to identify staff. This would be unfair as those involved would not reasonably expect the MPS to publish information of this nature that would allow them to be identified. Such identification may lead to unwanted and unsolicited intrusion into their private lives.

In cases such as this, one does not have to know someone’s name for them to be directly identifiable, a combination of other identifiers are sufficient to identify the individual.

To comply with DPA 2018 and GDPR, the MPS must ensure that any disclosures of personal data, however obtained, are fair and lawful. It would be unfair to disclose information that could lead to the identification and self-identification of staff. Those concerned would not reasonably expect the MPS to publish information that would allow them to be identified.

I hope you understand that the information which has been disclosed to you today has been carefully considered with individuals and staff members in mind.

The MPS would like to additionally advise that securing and maintaining the trust of the community is integral to the principle of policing by consent and to continue to do so, the MPS recognises that its staff must act with professionalism and integrity.

The MPS treats each occasion when an allegation is made about the conduct of its staff extremely seriously and will fully investigate each incident to determine whether the conduct of that member of staff has breached the standards of professional behaviour. Where the conduct of staff is proven to have fallen below the standards of behaviour expected, the MPS will take robust action to ensure that its staff are held to account and that lessons are learnt from each case.

Any instance where the conduct of our staff is alleged to have fallen below the standards of behaviour expected is treated extremely seriously by the MPS.

Section 40(2)(a)(b) - Personal Information - 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. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b), 3B of the Act.

There are six data protection principles that are set out in Section 34 of the Data Protection Act 2018. The first principle requires that the disclosure of the requested personal data must be lawful and fair. Under the Act, 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.

The requested records contain the following types of personal data that I consider exempt under the Act:

1. Low level identifiable ‘special category’ personal data

Having considered the release of the identified personal data, the MPS has found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that there is not a true public interest in disclosure of low level personal information which makes up the recorded information held, the information requested is uniquely personal to individuals in the context of their personal lives.

The disclosure of the full requested information under FOIA legislation is not necessary to meet a legitimate interest.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement) - Disclosure would enable the public to try and further understand police recording and handling of complaints and conduct actions in localised units in a recent period of time.

Law enforcement measures are put in place to protect the community that we serve.

Other than the information already disclosed today and that disclosed routinely on the MPS website, further low level self-identifying disclosure of information would undermine the public’s and staff trust in the police to handle individuals complaints and conduct matters professionally and sensitively. Full disclosure may lead to a decrease in contact with the police or police working with police should they fear constant adverse disclosures under FOIA will identify them or allow others to identify individuals (or mis-identify).

Under reporting of complaints and conduct matters is a real concern to the MPS and disclosure regarding specific incidents may lead to that chilling effect amongst staff, the community and erode trust in the police, which would not be in the public interest.

We believe that disclosure of redacted information today would compromise the ability of the MPS to exercise its functions in regard to disciplinary matters in terms of conduct and complaints which may be likely to hinder law enforcement in itself.

Disclosure would undermine the public’s trust in police handling of incidents regarding its functions in regard to disciplinary matters in terms of conduct and complaints considerately. Full disclosure is not in the public interest as it may lead to a decrease in contact with the police should the public and staff fear constant adverse disclosures under FOIA that may identify them or allow others to identify (or mis-identify) individuals.

Under reporting of crime is a real concern to the MPS and disclosure regarding specific incidents may lead to that chilling effect amongst the community and erode trust in the police, which would not be in the public interest.

The full disclosure of information would not, in the view of the MPS, greatly further the public’s understanding and instead could only be used to hinder law enforcement and crime prevention.

The strongest reason favouring full disclosure is the public interest in the public gaining the greatest possible understanding of local incidents regarding its functions in regard to disciplinary matters in terms of conduct and complaints.

The strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is ensuring there is no chilling effect of reporting incidents caused by an adverse disclosure of low level on disciplinary matters in terms of conduct and complaints. The disclosure of total figures hopefully go some way to reassuring the public we take disclosure of information very seriously in regards to complaints and conducts while balancing the need to ensure adverse data is not disclosed that may have a detrimental impact on law enforcement.

The MPS has determined that the public interest favours the application of this exemption.

This decision is reached on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public, but is what would be of greater good to the public if disclosed to the public as a whole. As advised, the Public Interest has been met to a large extent by the information already disclosed into the public domain that have had access to.

Disclosure

Please find below redacted information pursuant to your request above.