Information in regards to quadruple murder case off the island of Barbuda in January 1994

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.032222

I note you seek access to the following information:

I am seeking police records for a quadruple murder case off the island of Barbuda in January 1994, the victims were:
2 Americans--William and Cathy Clever; 2 English citizens: Ian Cridland and Thomas Williams.

The case was investigated by Scotland Yard personnel:
Detective Superintendent Michael (Mick) Lawrence Detective Sgt Dave Marshall Detective Constable Jim Johnstone (all three were part of the International and Organised Crime Branch and part of the Specialist Operations Department)

The case was tried against two men:
Mellanson Harris
Marvin Joseph
February 1996 in Antigua's High Court
QC: Rex Mackay
Public defender: Clement Bird

THE RECORDS I SEEK;
1. all police reports and summary reports
2. all crime scene photos and sketches
3. all video, audio of crime scene
4. all video, audio interviews with suspects and witnesses

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 38(1) - Health and Safety
Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) - Personal information

Reason for decision

There was no information held for questions 3 and 4 of your request and no crime scene photos held for question 2.

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.

To disclose names of individuals connected with this investigation, email addresses, phone numbers, post mortem details etc could cause an individual to be identified. This cannot be allowed. Consideration must also be given to the mental state of the individual/victim/families if identified.

Section 38(1) – Health & Safety - of the Act provides an exemption from the disclosure of information which would, or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of any individual.

Disclosure of the names of individuals connected with this investigation, email addresses, phone numbers, post mortem details etc will provide any person with knowledge of the offence, incident and where it took place, to use the information disclosed to work out who the individuals may be and cause that person (or others) much distress and harm. This could compromise the mental health of the person involved or/and the ongoing or any other future investigation.

Disclosure of names of individuals connected with this investigation, email addresses, phone numbers, post mortem details etc could jeopardise the mental state and safety of the individual. This will not be in the public interest. If this information was to fall into the hands of others involved/aware the information can be used to undermine the security and safety of the wider community and/or the person concerned.

The harm identified above, is reduced by not disclosing names of individuals connected with this investigation, email addresses, phone numbers, post mortem details etc, 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 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 connected with this investigation, email addresses, phone numbers, post mortem details etc cannot be permitted.

The MPS response for the rest of this request permits the disclosure of the police report and sketches which is not likely to lead to the identification of individuals.

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 connected with this investigation, email addresses, phone numbers, post mortem details 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.

It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 38 & 40 to the same pieces of information.

Disclosure

Please see attached redacted police report and sketches.