Analysis and process of evidence from Drones
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.033349
I note you seek access to the following information:
1. Does your Digital Forensics department have the ability to analyse and process evidence from Drones?
2. If not, is this work sent to a 3rd Party?
3. Can you give any example of types of illegal activity that drones have been seized / analysed for evidence within your Police service?
4. In 2022, how many reports did you have of incidents involving drones?”
CLARIFICATION -
“something occurred involving a drone owned by public which was then reported to police/incident recorded on your system involving the word drone.”
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).
In addition, and irrespective of what other information may or may not be held relating to drones seized or examined as a result of terrorism, this request also requires the MPS to Neither Confirm Nor Deny whether it holds any further information. This is because the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions;
Section 23(5) - Information concerning security bodies
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 30(3) - Investigations
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement
Reason for decision
NCND (Neither Confirm Nor Deny) -
Section 23(5) – Information concerning security bodies & Section 24(2) – National Security -
Security measures are put in place to protect the community we serve. As evidenced within the harm to confirm whether terror offences have occurred would highlight to terrorists whether the MPS has conducted investigations of this nature, thus whether or not the police are aware of such activity.
Taking into account the current security climate within the United Kingdom, no information (such as the citing of an exemption which confirms terror offences have occurred within the MPS jurisdiction; or conversely, stating no information is held) which may aid a terrorist should be disclosed. To what extent this information may aid a terrorist is unknown, but it is clear that it will have an impact on a force’s ability to monitor terrorist activity.
Irrespective of what information is or isn’t held, the public entrust the Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety and protection and the only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with what is placed into the public domain.
The cumulative effect of terrorists gathering information from various sources would be even more impactive when linked to other information gathered from various sources about terrorism. The more information disclosed over time will give a more detailed account of the tactical infrastructure of not only a force area but also the country as a whole.
Any incident that results from such a disclosure would, by default, affect National Security.
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement - Confirmation or denial that information relating to terror offences is held in this case would suggest the MPS take their responsibility to protect information dismissively and inappropriately.
The MPS has a duty of care to the community at large and public safety is of paramount importance. If an FOI disclosure revealed information to the world that would undermine the security of the national infrastructure, this could then be used by offenders, including terrorist organisations, to their advantage, which would compromise public safety and more worryingly encourage offenders to carry out further crimes.
By its very nature, information relating to whether or not terror offences have occurred within a specific force area undoubtedly undermines the effective delivery of operational law enforcement. Under FOI there is a requirement to comply with Section 1(1)(a) and confirm what information is held. In some cases it is that confirmation, or not, which could disclose facts harmful to members of the public, police officers, other law enforcement agencies and their employees.
Section 30(3) - Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the MPS is appropriately and effectively dealing with crime, there is a strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and operations and in maintaining confidence in the Police Service. Confirmation or denial that any other information is held relevant to the use of drones connected to terrorism would undermine any investigative process and compromise the integrity of any operations.
Any release under FOIA is a disclosure to the world, not just to the individual making the request. To confirm or not that any other information is held pertinent to this request would reveal whether or not there have been any seizure and examination of drones in relation to terrorism.
To confirm or deny whether any other information relating to terrorism is held would be extremely useful to those involved in terrorist activity, which would ultimately undermine ongoing investigations, which could lead to police officers having to be removed from their frontline duties in order to increase manpower on an investigation.
The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built and the threat from terrorism cannot be ignored. It is generally recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. The current UK threat level from international terrorism, based on intelligence, is assessed as of today’s date, as ‘SUBSTANTIAL, which means that a terrorist attack is likely, see below link:
Threat Levels | MI5 - The Security Service
In order to counter criminal and terrorist behaviour it is vital that the police have the ability to work together, where necessary covertly, to obtain intelligence within current legislative frameworks to assist in the investigative process to ensure the successful arrest and prosecution of offenders who commit or plan to commit acts of terrorism.
Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.
The points above highlight the merits of confirming or denying whether any other information is held in relation to drones seized in connection to terror offences. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As part of that policing purpose, information is gathered which can be highly sensitive relating to high profile investigative activity.
Weakening the mechanisms used to monitor terrorist activity would place the security of the country at an increased level of danger.
In addition anything that places that confidence at risk, no matter how generic, would undermine any trust or confidence individuals have in the Police Service. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that any other information is held with regard to question 3.
Disclosure
Q1 - Does your Digital Forensics department have the ability to analyse and process evidence from Drones?
Yes.
Q2 - If not, is this work sent to a 3rd Party?
Not applicable.
Q3 - Can you give any example of types of illegal activity that drones have been seized / analysed for evidence within your Police service?
Of the 12 submissions MO4 Forensic Services progressed in 2023, 11 were related to drug offences and one related to endangering an aircraft.
Please note: not all drones seized are sent for analysis.
Q4 - In 2022, how many reports did you have of incidents involving drones?
722 (seven hundred and twenty two).
Further Information
There are a number of published items on the MPS Publication Scheme relating to drones which may be of interest to you. To assist and for your convenience I have provided you with a link to a list of items found on the Publication Scheme in response to a search for the term ‘drone’:
With reference to the applicant of NCND in this case, it should be noted that NCND is applied equally in cases where information is held and cases where no information is held. This response should therefore, not be taken as an indication of whether or not any further information is held.