Racially aggravated malicious communications from January 2019 to February 2024

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.037129

I note you seek access to the following information:

1a) How many people did you charge for racially aggravated malicious communications?

1b) If recorded include numbers and/or a percentage summary of ethnicity of those charged.

1c) If a record of the complainant exists please also provide summary of complainant ethnicity

Please provide this data for the years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

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) – Investigations
Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

I note that you are seeking disclosure of the total number of persons charged for racially aggravated malicious communications for the years 2019 to 2024, broken down by year and by the enthicity of both the victim and the person charged.

I have made the decision to disclose the information you are seeking, however, in the case of persons charged, please be advised that due to low figures for some ethnicities, when broken down by year, we are unable to break the information down by year, and have instead made the decision to disclose this data as a total for the years you are interested in.

If we were to disclose the data broken down by year, as you have requested, when the type of incident and ethnicity of the victim has also been disclosed, this would identify specific investigations and individuals concerned. This would release extremely sensitive personal information about individuals into the public domain and could also prejudice investigations. For these reasons Section 30(1)(a)(i), of the Act, which provides an exemption for information relating to investigations, and Section 40(2)(3A)(a) of the Act, which provides an exemption for personal information, have both been applied to refuse disclosure in this case.

Section 30(1)(a)(i) – Law Enforcement - Disclosing the information broken down as requested could impact upon ongoing investigations. If we were to regularly disclose information in a manner that could lead to specific crimes and individuals being identified this would also lead to people not reporting incidents to police. This would impact on our ability to detect and prevent crime and prosecute offenders and could lead to an escalation in offences/incidents which would also be prejudicial to law enforcement.

There is a public interest in the transparency of the investigation of crime and providing assurance that the MPS is appropriately and effectively dealing with hate crime and hate incidents.

However, there is also a strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations, by not releasing information that could hinder that investigation and prejudice the outcome of any legal proceedings.

I have determined that the disclosure of the breakdown you have requested for persons charged for racially aggravated malicious communications, but which has not been disclosed in this response, would not be in the public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure, particularly given the level of information disclosed today – which I believe satisfies the wider public interest.

Section 40(2)(3)&(4) – Personal Information - The first principle requires that the disclosure of the requested personal data must be lawful and fair. Under the Act, 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 requested information if disclosed could identify specific investigations and individuals concerned and release extremely sensitive information in relation to individuals concerned into the public domain.

Having considered the data, I have found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that any further break down would not be in accordance with the first principle of the DPA 2018. Although I understand there is an interest in the information you are seeking I believe this interest has been satisfied by the release of the disclosed information. I do not believe that providing any more details, when there is a reasonable risk that the additional information would identify individuals involved, and prejudice investigations, would add to any wider public debate that may be ongoing.

Furthermore I do not think it would be fair to individuals concerned if information was disclosed that identified them in a Freedom of Information response and in the case of persons charged, impacted on their right to a fair trial.

Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would identify any living individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). I have applied this exemption in that the identity of individuals that may be realised through providing the information broken down in the format you have requested would constitute personal data which, if released, would be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.

The six principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that providing information that has the possibility of identifying individuals constitutes personal data. The release of this information would be unfair as the persons concerned would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly available.

In reaching my decision, I have, in each case, given due regard to the condition at Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(e) of the GDPR. Condition one of the GDPR requires that consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that consideration is given to performance of a public task in the public interest.

Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is present or would likely be received to release this information. 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.

Section 40 is a class based absolute exemption in cases where disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act 2018) and General Data Protection Regulations, as in this case, and there is no requirement to consider the public interest as legislators are in agreement that disclosure would be harmful.

Disclosure

Please see below a spreadsheet for data relevant to your request.

Please ensure that the data provided is read in conjunction with the notes page of the spreadsheet to ensure correct interpretation of the data provided.