Regulations, rules and criminal offence of waste

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.036947

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. What are the MetPolice's regulations and rules for dealing with environmental impacts and public health incidents on the sites of criminal offences?
2. What are the regulations and rules for dealing with very big piles of waste on sites of criminal offences when clearing it off illegal squatters?
3. What were the steps, which the MetPolice officers dealing with the gypsy encampment eviction ref.(REDACTED), took in order to clear the site at the White Hart Pub from the pile of rubbish? Had they informed the EA and/or the PHE (now UKHSA)?
4. If police officers fail in their duty to inform other public sector organisations of sites with hazardous environmental impacts what are the consequences for them?
5. What are the MetPolice's HR regulations and rules for breaching any such regulations and rules and the public health law?

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 31(3) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(5) - Personal Information

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information in relation to question 3. The duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Act.

Reason for decision

Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement - Eroding public trust - There are a number of factors which effect the ability of the MPS to prevent and detect crime. One of which centres on public engagement and public trust. How comfortable are the public with reporting crime? Can the MPS be trusted with information provided by the public? When a member of the public contacts the police to report an offence, there is an expectation that the allegation will remain confidential. This consensus allows the public the confidence to report allegations and offences in the MPS district, without the fear of being identified to the wider public. It could be argued that by confirming or denying whether any information is held in relation to this request I could be providing you with the specific location and date where an incident took place. Which arguably could if held lead to the identification of the individual who made the report.

It is important to note that if there is a perceived risk that an individual could be identified, no matter how small the risk could be, this would undoubtedly erode the public’s trust. This is likely to make individuals less likely to report offences to the MPS in the future, if this may lead to the identification of the individual making the report. It may also make individuals that have already reported allegations worry that these could be disclosed at some point.

You have sought information on ‘the steps, which the Met Police officers dealing with the gypsy encampment eviction ref. Redacted, took in order to clear the site at the White Hart Pub from the pile of rubbish?’. Via a public interest test I have presented two opposing arguments for and against confirming or denying whether any information is held in relation to this request. This would make public if any reports of have been received by the MPS about a particular location on a specific date. This would reinforce the MPS’s commitment to transparency with the public. I accept that this has wider connatations. Openess is linked to trust, the very trust necessary to instill a sense of confidence in the MPS.

Conversely, I have also found that there is a compelling argument that if the MPS were to confirm or deny whether any information is held this could identify individuals. The combination of the specific location and date could identify an individual making the allegation. There are far reaching issues that arise from this, in that there is an clear expectation that when the public reports allegations, this is done so confidentially. So, to confirm or deny whether any information is held could identify an individual, which may erode public trust, which in turn is likely to make individuals less likely to report allegations and offences to the MPS in the future. For an organisation that relies upon and requires public participation to help with law enforcement this would be detrimental and counterproductive to our aims. It is for this overriding factor that I have refused your request and will not confirm or deny whether any information is held in relation to your request.

Section 40(5B) - Personal Information - To confirm or deny whether any information is held in relation to your request could publicly reveal information about an individual or individuals. This would breach the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). There are six data protection principles set out in section 34 of the DPA 2018 and under Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The first principle requires personal data to be processed in a ‘lawful and fair’ manner. The basis for determining what constitutes lawful and fair is outlined under section 35 of the DPA. Under section 35(2) it states:

• the data subject has given consent to the processing for that purpose, or
• the processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out for that purpose by a competent authority.

Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

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

You have asked for information on ‘the steps, which the Met Police officers dealing with the gypsy encampment eviction ref. Redacted, took in order to clear the site at the White Hart Pub from the pile of rubbish?’. By means of a legitimate interest test I have considered the release of this personal data, I have found that:

• Confirming or denying whether the requested information is held would provide a factual answer to this request. The legitimate interest in transparency would be further satisfied through the release of this information.
• Confirming or denying whether the information requested is held could disclose whether the MPS has recorded any allegations or offences at a very specific location on a particular day. This being the case, confirming or denying whether any information is held could identify an individual or individuals that may have contacted the MPS, irrespective of whether any information is held. This could pose a legitimate risk to an individual who has confidentially contacted the MPS, as they could be identified.

I have accordingly applied a section 40(5) exemption to your request. No inference can be taken from this refusal that information does or does not exist

Disclosure

Q1 - What are the MetPolice's regulations and rules for dealing with environmental impacts and public health incidents on the sites of criminal offences?

There are no specific Met Regulations relating to dealing with environmental impact or public health incidents on non-MPS owned land/property. The MPS would collaborate and liaise appropriately with the responsible enforcement agency (e.g. Local Authority Environmental Health, Health Security Agency, Environment Agency, Public Utilities Companies) to minimise risk where applicable.

Q2 - What are the regulations and rules for dealing with very big piles of waste on sites of criminal offences when clearing it off illegal squatters?

In circumstances where waste is illegally dumped on a privately owned site and the persons responsible are unable to be traced, it would be the responsibility of the landowner/person responsible (interest in land) to remove it. If such illegal dumping happens on public land, it would be the responsibility of the local authority to remove the waste material.

Q3 - What were the steps, which the MetPolice officers dealing with the gypsy encampment eviction ref. Redacted, took in order to clear the site at the White Hart Pub from the pile of rubbish? Had they informed the EA and/or the PHE (now UKHSA)?

The MPS can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information in relation to this question.

Q4 - If police officers fail in their duty to inform other public sector organisations of sites with hazardous environmental impacts what are the consequences for them?

Please see the answer provided in question 2 – it is not the responsibility of police officers to inform other public sector organisations of sites with hazardous environmental impacts.

Q5 - What are the MetPolice's HR regulations and rules for breaching any such regulations and rules and the public health law?

The MPS has a robust health and safety audit and assurance system to assure legislative compliance with Health and Safety statute, and relevant risks (incl health risks identified under the relevant public health legislation) are identified, recorded, monitored and reviewed along with appropriate control measures.