Officers testing for positive anabolic steroids

 

I note you seek access to the following information:

 

I would like to know:

 

- A) How many officers have tested positive for anabolic steroids in the past five years?

- B) How many times has the potential use of anabolic steroids come up in misconduct investigations in the past 5 years, regardless of outcome? i.e. I hope this can be achieved by simply searching for the term “steroids” within all misconduct cases and giving me a tally of ‘X cases in 2018’, ‘X cases in 2019’ etc

- C) How does this compare to the total number of misconduct investigations launched on a yearly basis?

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)(3A)(a) - Personal Information

 

 

With regards to question B the breakdown of years has not been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure by Section 40(2)(3A)(a) - Personal Information.

 

 

Section 40(2)(3A)(a) - Personal Information - I consider that Section 40(2) and 40(3A)(a) is applicable in this case, as any further disclosure at this level of detail, would breach the 1st data protection principle that requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals. 

 

There is no presumption of disclosure in relation to ‘personal data’ which is defined as: ‘any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual’

 

“Identifiable living individual” means a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to—

 

(a) An identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identifier, or

(b) One or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual.’

 

For such disclosure to be lawful, it would be necessary to satisfy a condition within Article 6 of the GDPR. Article 6 sets out the six lawful bases, applying to all processing; one of which must be in place in every case of disclosure of personal data, in accordance with the first data protection principle. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance provides:

 

‘In all circumstances, you must have an Article 6 lawful basis for processing. 

 

There are six lawful bases for processing in Article 6, but only (a) consent or (f) legitimate interest are relevant to disclosure under FOIA or EIR.

 

In order to assess whether this lawful basis is engaged you need to consider three key questions:

 

(i) Purpose: what is the legitimate interest in disclosure of the information?

(ii) Necessity: is disclosure necessary for that purpose?

(iii) Balancing test: does the legitimate interest outweigh the interests and rights of the individual?’

 

Here, we need to balance the rights and freedoms of the individuals involved with any legitimate public interest in disclosure. Any further breakdown for question B (specific years and number of officers), under FOIA legislation is not necessary to meet a legitimate interest, particularly when considering the distress that is likely to be caused to individuals with the disclosure of wholly personal information via an FOIA request.

 

With this in mind, the data subjects in the circumstances of your request would have a legitimate expectation that this type of personal data would not be used for non-policing purposes (i.e. FOIA requests – disclosures for which are also placed on the MPS website Publication Scheme). 

 

Any further disclosure in the circumstances of your request would be unlawful and would therefore contravene the first data protection principle. I have therefore applied the exemption provided under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act to this information as the first condition, defined in subsection (3A)(a) of Section 40 has been satisfied. This therefore, becomes an absolute exemption.

 

I have however, provided you with a total figure for the time period requested. 

 

 

 

Two Officers

 

 

Six Officers

 

QC - How does this compare to the total number of misconduct investigations launched on a yearly basis?

	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	Grand Total
Number of Cases	876	701	802	1131	1376	1627	6513

 

The Met has significantly increased its use of random drug testing.  In 2021, the Met conducted 161 random drug tests with no positive results. By October 2023 we had conducted 968 random drug tests with seven positive results.