Recorded strip searches from 2019 to 2023

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.034969

I note you seek access to the following information:

How many 'strip searches' were carried out by your officers in the past two calendar years (2022 and 2023) while the person being searched was not in police custody.

Please list each occasion and the information by:

- sex of person searched
- exact age of person searched (if this is not possible, please use granular age-brackets, eg. under-15, 16-17, 18-20, 21-24, 25+)
- ethnicity of person searched
- reason given for the search
- outcome of the search (items found?)
- whether the individual was then arrested - and what for

I note you responded to an identical request for the years 2019, 2020, and 2023. It would be useful if you provided this data in the same format, with a more granular age breakdown, as requested.

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 and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities
Section 40(2)(3) - (Personal Information)

Reason for decision

Section 30(1)(a)(i) - Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities - This is due to the fact that a small number of records have not been included, as they are restricted. This is because they relate to investigations.

Section 30(1)(a)(i) of the Act allows public authorities to withhold information if it has been held, at any time, for the purposes of an investigation conducted by that public authority with a view to it being ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence.

The MPS does not upon request, disclose the information that it has collated in respect of an investigation. To do so would make public, details of a police investigation that are of a sensitive/personal nature. Ultimately making this level of detail available to the public would be inappropriate as it is held exclusively for the purpose of a police investigation. Its public release would also be contrary to the general expectation/understanding that police investigations are confidential.

The MPS has a statutory role in establishing whether any person has committed a criminal offence. The release of police information that is held for the purpose of an investigation, would be likely to have an adverse impact upon the ability of the MPS to conduct criminal investigations.

The public release of the information requested would harm any future investigation and/or judicial proceedings.

The sole reason that the MPS holds this restricted information is for the purpose of an investigation. Secondly the public release of information obtained and held for an investigation would make it more difficult to obtain similar information in connection with future investigations. This would occur because those involved directly or indirectly in police investigations, would not expect the MPS to make this type of information available under the Freedom of Information Act. Over time, the perception that police investigative data is not confidential, that would result from the release of information of this nature, would be likely to adversely affect the ability of the police to obtain information in connection with future investigations. This would be contrary to the public interest.

When a request for information is made, I must determine whether exemptions should be claimed and in the case of exemptions that are qualified, establish whether release is in the public interest. Having considered your request and the fact that a small number of records are restricted, I have chosen to claim Section 30 (Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities) of the Act.

Having identified and considered the factors relevant to the public interest, I have carefully examined the importance of transparency with the public. The MPS is committed to transparency with the public and recognises that greater transparency is likely to improve public confidence in the MPS. For this reason, I have attached weight to this public interest factor.

In assessing your request, I have also evaluated the harm that release of the requested (restricted) information would be likely to cause. The requested information is of a sensitive/personal nature. The public release of the requested information would harm any future investigation and/or related proceedings. This is important as the sole reason that the MPS holds this information is for the purpose of an investigation.

Having carefully considered your request, I acknowledge the importance of transparency with the public. However, having considered each identified public interest factor, I have found that the harm that would be caused to any future investigations should the MPS disclose the investigative material collated for this investigation, to be the most persuasive argument in this request. On balance, I believe that the public interest supports refusing your request. I have accordingly refused to provide the information located in response to your request for information

Section 40(2)(3) - (Personal Information) - You have requested information which could lead to the identification of individuals.

Unfortunately we have not been able to provide you with a breakdown of all of the data as requested. This is due to the fact that the provision of the data as above would lead to the possible identification of individuals.

This is due to the fact that the provision of the data as above would lead to the possible identification of individuals. In relation to ‘exact age of person searched ’, we have aggregated the data and provided age ranges (eg: 17 and below, 18+ etc), as opposed the precise age.

A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because, under Freedom of Information, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world and not just to one individual.

The MPS, like all UK public authorities are obliged to comply with the Data Protection Act 2018 and this includes the protection of personal data.

If you marry all the data that you’ve requested, we believe the release of this data would make it less anonymous and likely to lead to the identification of living individuals.

This type of information can fairly be considered "personal data" and sensitive, with a clear identifiable link. In most cases, personal data is exempt from disclosure under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act.

Where an individual is requesting third party personal data the MPS must ensure that any action taken adheres to the principles of GDPR/ the Data Protection Act 2018.

To clarify, the Freedom of Information Act only allows disclosure of personal data if that disclosure would be compliant with that law.

It is legitimate for the MPS to consider the cumulative effect of disclosing information of a similar nature in respect of the occupations of the offenders under the Freedom of Information Act, and the effect this has on public perception and how it responsibly and sensitively handles personal data in a public forum.

Section 40(2)(a)(b) - 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. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b) and 3B of the Act.

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 considered the release of information relating to the officers pay I have found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that:
a. The disclosure of this information would satisfy an identifiable legitimate interest, being to provide information that will show transparency and accountability.
b. However, publication in a without aggregating the ages would possibly lead to the of individuals being identified.
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.
Explanation of Exemptions Claimed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Disclosure

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.