Police Officers & PCSO's charged/convicted from March 2018 to January 2024

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.035089

I note you seek access to the following information:

For the period 3 March 2018 to 10 January 2024, please could you tell me:

1) The number of police officers and PCSOs in your force convicted of a crime.

2) For each officer/PCSO listed in your answer to question 1, the type of offence (assault, rape, etc), the date of the offence and the date of conviction.

3) The name, date of birth, gender and rank of each convicted officer/PCSO and their status with your force at the date of offence and now (i.e. still serving, suspended, on limited duties, resigned, sacked, etc).

For the period 3 March 2021 to 10 January 2024, please could you tell me:

4) The number of police officers and PCSOs charged with a criminal offence where the case is yet to conclude (i.e. a trial is yet to take place, plea hearing is yet to be held, etc);

5) For each officer/PCSO listed in your answer to question 4, the type of offence that they are charged with (assault, rape, etc) and the date of the alleged offence.

6) The name, age, gender and rank of each officer/PCSO charged with an offence and their status with your force both now and when the alleged offence occurred (i.e. still serving, suspended, on limited duties, resigned, sacked, etc).

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 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information:

Reason for decision

Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information - of the Act provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles.

There are six principles that are set out in Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) that dictate when the processing of personal data is lawful. The first principle requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, 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.

Having given regard to the legitimate interest test, I have found that:

a. The disclosure of the names, dates of birth, ages, incident dates and dates of conviction of police officers/PCSOs convicted of criminal offences or charged with offences, would provide further factual information about these police officers/PCSOs. Given the extraordinary powers that are granted to police officers and PCSOs in society, legitimate interests in transparency and accountability would be satisfied through the release of this information.

b. This disclosure of the requested personal data is necessary to satisfy the legitimate interest identified at point a.

c. The MPS employs over 34,000 police officers including those in the Metropolitan Special Constabulary. There are also in the region of 1300 PCSOs currently employed by the MPS. These number has remained relatively consistent since 2018. A relatively small number of police officers and PCSOs employed by the MPS have been convicted or charged with criminal offences from the 3 March 2018 to the 10 January 2024. Given this, I have found that the release of their names, dates of birth, ages, incident dates and dates of conviction, in one table, would lead to identification. The risk of identification would be heightened within the MPS. Should the MPS identify police officers/PCSOs convicted or charged with criminal offences, this would constitute releasing personal criminal offence data. The Information Commissioner’s (the ombudsman for the Act) guidance on the release of personal criminal offence data under the Act states:

‘Due to its sensitivity, the conditions for processing criminal offence data are very restrictive and generally concern specific, stated purposes. Consequently, only two are relevant to allow you to lawfully disclose under FOIA or the EIR. They are similar to those identified above for special category data. These are:

• consent from the data subject; or
• the processing relates to personal data which has clearly been made public by the individual concerned.

If a relevant condition cannot be met, you must not disclose the information as disclosure would be unlawful and therefore in contravention of principle (a).’

The conditions required to release personal criminal offence data are not present in this case. The release of the requested personal data does not accordingly satisfy a legitimate interest and cannot be disclosed under the Act.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.

Disclosure

I have disclosed the located information to you. Please find enclosed with this notice, a spreadsheet in which the located information has been provided. In providing this information to you, I have refused to release the following information on the basis that its provision would lead to identification and the disclosure of personal data, contrary to the rights provided by the Data Protection Act 2018:

1. The names of the police officers/PCSOs convicted of criminal offences
2. The dates of birth of the police officers/PCSOs convicted of criminal offences
3. The ages of the police officers/PCSOs convicted of criminal offences
4. The incident dates
5. Dates of conviction (this has been substituted for the year)

Maintaining Public Trust in the MPS
Securing and maintaining the trust of the community is integral to the principle of policing by consent and to continue to do so, the MPS recognises that its staff must act with professionalism and integrity. As we would all expect, the vast majority of our officers and staff uphold the law at all times, both at work and in their personal lives.

Whenever a serving member of staff is convicted of any offence, the case is thoroughly reviewed and progressed in line with the relevant Conduct Regulations. The overwhelming majority of those convicted of criminal offences leave the service. Even if an employee resigns or retires following a conviction the MPS will continue the misconduct process to its conclusion to ensure that where relevant the individual will be placed on the Barred Register held by the College of Policing. Those appearing on the register cannot be employed by police, local policing bodies (PCCs), the Independent Office for Police Conduct or Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services.

Securing and maintaining the trust of the community is integral to the principle of policing by consent. The Met recognises that its staff must act with professionalism and integrity whether on or off-duty.

DUTY TO ADVISE AND ASSIST
Under Section 16 of the Act, there is a duty to advise and assist those that have made, or intend to make, a request for information. In accordance with this duty, I can confirm that the MPS publishes information about various types of crime on its website. I have provided a link to this information below.

MPS Website: Stats and Data

It may also assist you to note that the MPS proactively publishes all disclosures made in response to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on its Publication Scheme. I have provided a link to this section of the MPS website below.

MPS Website: Publication Scheme