Correspondence between the Director of Forensic Services to Dawn Butler MP

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.041712

I note you seek access to the following information:

A story in The Standard refers to a letter sent by your director of forensic services to Dawn Butler MP telling her "there is currently a gap" in officer DNA and fingerprinting databases:

(Link is removed)

The story includes details of the "gap" - around half of your 33,000 officers.

1. Please provide copies of your correspondence with Dawn Butler MP on this matter.
2. Can you confirm that the gap is around half of your 33,000 officers?

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(1)(a) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

I have disclosed the letter sent by your director of forensic services to Dawn Butler MP document in redacted format, that is, I have removed the following information:

• The address of the Directorate of Forensic Services.
• The email address, signature and post-nominal letters of the Director of Forensic Services.

The redactions made are denoted with black boxes (i.e. Example). In removing information that I consider to be exempt under the Act, I have relied on the following provisions of the Act:

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:

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

Signature and post nominal letters of MPS Members of Staff
The requested document contains the names of persons holding the position of Director. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

A - The employees holding the position of Director are likely to expect their name to be published in response to this Freedom of Information Act request given their level of responsibility within the MPS however their personal email address, signature and post nominal letters are their personal data. I have not identified a legitimate interest that would be satisfied in disclosing their personal data in response to this request for information.

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - Section 31(1)(a) of the Act provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

Disruption to the Work of MPS Employees and Partner Agencies - The release and publication of the address of the Directorate of Forensic Services would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of these organisations, with information that would assist them to do so. In this regard, a person with this intent would be likely to use this information to make inappropriate contact with these organisations and/or their employees, sending them vast quantities of unsolicited correspondence. This would tie up the resources of these organisations/employees causing disruption. This would directly hinder the prevention and/or detection of crime.

Having considered your request, I accept that there is a public interest in transparency when any request is made for police information. The public interest favouring release must be balanced against any associated risk and/or prejudice that would be caused by disclosure. Having carefully considered this, I have found that that the public release of the address of the Directorate of Forensic Services, would provide persons intent on causing disruption, with information that would assist them in this endeavour. Given this and the fact that the removal of this information does not detract from the quality of the records being disclosed, I have found that the release of this information is not in the public interest. For the reasons set out above, I have not released some information that is captured by your request for information.

Disclosure

Q1 - Please provide copies of your correspondence with Dawn Butler MP on this matter.

Please see below a redacted letter which was sent by the Director of Forensic Services to Dawn Butler MP on 6 October 2023.

Q2 - Can you confirm that the gap is around half of your 33,000 officers?

We are not in a position to directly answer your question as you have phrased it, however the below details do provide further information on this area.

On joining the police, officers are required to give a DNA sample and their fingerprints. Whilst we hold a number of officer DNA profiles and fingerprints, there remains a disparity between those DNA profiles and fingerprints held on the CED and PED and the number of serving officers (including paid and volunteer Specials). There are a number of reasons that biometrics are not held, including officers joining the police before the routine collection of fingerprints and DNA samples, previous changes in regulations that relate to the taking of such samples, and activity to ensure effective data protection.

Our most recent review of the MPS data obtained from these systems indicated that the number of fingerprints held relating to MPS officers was 32,080 and DNA profiles was 23,398, whereas the combined headcount of officers as of the end of October 2024 was 35,085. It should be noted these numbers represent fingerprints and DNA profiles held, rather than the number of officers to whom they relate. We apply (and would urge) significant caution to the use of these figures in indicating the full extent of the gap between biometrics held and serving officers. The CED and PED are national databases hosted within Home Office rather than MPS systems, and do not have a direct link to the MPS personnel system. Furthermore, there are retention periods associated with biometrics after officers leave service, as well as duplications in the records. Therefore, although the systems can provide figures in the terms specified above, we have identified the need for a systematic review of which serving MPS officers do not have fingerprints and/ or DNA profiles on the databases. This systematic review is in progress. Once completed we will be in a position to provide more authoritative data. In parallel we are reviewing our processes for obtaining DNA and fingerprints from new joiners and serving officers, to ensure these are robust and effective.