Penalty Notices issued from March 2020 to December 2022 - Covid guidelines

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.035566

I note you seek access to the following information:

I would like to see Fixed Penalty Notices issued between the period of March 2020 and December 2022 in relation to offences breaking the covid guidelines set.

1. Details on the process of investigation, how information was gathered and discerned to conclude that individuals across government bodies had broken guidelines and would therefore be charged with Fixed Penalty Notices

2. Infographics on how many Fixed Penalty Notices were issued throughout the period of time, specifically in relation to the ‘parties’ held at governmental level between the aforementioned time frame (March 2020 and December 2022). Providing the individual details of who was charged with such notices ie, name and job title at time. Furthermore, whether there was any discourse between those who were charged with such notices and the Metropolitan Police Force with regards to the case and its overall investigation.

4) The conclusion that the Metropolitan Police Force came to during the investigation, with regards to whether individuals involved within the parties were breaking the law set at the time. Also the conclusion that Metropolitan Police Force came to on whether the events in themselves were justified work events or were unjustified and breaking covid guidelines set at each time of the ‘parties’.

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 30(1)(a)(i)(ii) - Investigations and proceedings
Section 40(2)(3a)(a) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

The above Exemptions have been applied because any information held will be held for the purpose of investigations or proceedings that the MPS has a duty to conduct.

Please be reminded that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 only covers information held in recorded form and does not cover requests for an explanation of decisions that a public authority has taken. The duty to disclose some of the information therefore does not apply in this case. Furthermore, even if recorded information were held, the MPS would be prohibited from disclosing information and/or providing commentary on the decision making in respect of specific individuals and criminal offences under the UK GDPR. Decisions made by public bodies, such as a decision not to open an investigation into alleged criminal conduct, can be challenged by way of judicial review.

Section 30(1)(a)(i)(ii) - Investigations and proceedings - By its very nature, any information held relating to investigations is sensitive in nature.

The exemption under Section 30 is concerned with preserving the safe space that can be critical to the investigation and prosecution process. It is designed to protect the independence of the judicial and prosecution process by preserving the criminal court as the sole forum for the determination of guilt.

The MPS will never disclose information that could identify sensitive investigative activity and therefore undermine their investigations. To do so would hinder the prevention and detection of crime, as well as prejudice the MPS's ability to fairly conduct investigations. To disclose such information would be harmful to any investigations, should they be unsolved at this time.

I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure.

Section 40(2)(3a)(a) - Personal Information - To disclose personal information in relation to your request could publicly reveal information about an individual or individuals, thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

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 3(A), 3(B) and 4(A) of the Data Protection Act 2018.

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 specified within Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the information would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which requires that personal data shall be: “processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency)”;

Under the Data Protection Act 2018, 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 MPS accept that there is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of the requested information, however to disclose the information we hold would be grossly unfair to those captured within the data.

Disclosure

Q2 - Infographics on how many Fixed Penalty Notices were issued throughout the period of time, specifically in relation to the ‘parties’ held at governmental level between the aforementioned time frame (March 2020 and December 2022). Providing the individual details of who was charged with such notices ie, name and job title at time. Furthermore, whether there was any discourse between those who were charged with such notices and the Metropolitan Police Force with regards to the case and its overall investigation.

Any request for personal information is exempt in this request under Sec 40 as mentioned above, however I have provided the below press statement which was released at the conclusion of Operation Hillman:

19 May 2022:
‘The total of people receiving fixed penalty notices is 126, including 53 men and 73 women.

28 people have received more than one fine for their role in multiple events.

The fines relate to events which occurred across eight different dates, including May 20, 2020; June 18, 2020; June 19, 2020; November 13, 2020; December 17, 2020; December 18, 2020; January 14, 2021; and April 16, 2021.

The Met emphasised that their investigation was made more complex by the fact that different Covid regulations were in force across the different dates in question, and it had to place each event in context before determining whether any punitive measures were warranted.

345 documents, including emails, door logs, diary entries and witness statements were examined as part of the probe, alongside 510 photographs and CCTV images. 204 questionnaires were also sent out to individuals of interest who attended the events.’