Inventory of drones
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.042050
I note you seek access to the following information:
Provide a full inventory of drones that the police force has access to, storing the data in a table disaggregated using the following fields:
- Drone manufacturer
- Model
- Technical capabilities
- Cost
- Conditions of usage; is it owned, leased, borrowed, etc. If it isn't owned by the police force, please share who the owner is
- List of additional payloads attached to the drone; disaggregated into the following fields;
a. Manufacturer
b. Model
c. Technical capabilities
d. Cost
e. Conditions of usage; is it owned, leased, borrowed, etc. If it isn't owned by the police force,
please share who the owner is.
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)(b) - Law Enforcement
Section 43(2) - Commercial Interest
Reason for decision
When a request is made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), a public authority must inform you, when permitted, whether the information requested is held. It must then communicate that information to you. If a public authority decides that it cannot comply with all or part of a request, it must cite the appropriate section or exemption of the Act and provide you with a suitable explanation. It is important to note that the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.
I have considered your request for information:
Questions 1 to 6d.
The above request for information is exempt under:
Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement - The MPS is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities it serves. To disclose information on Drones capabilities in our inventory would reveal tactical capability and would benefit criminals, which may include terrorists or terrorist organisations.
In addition, the threat from terrorism cannot be ignored. It is generally recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. The current UK threat level from international terrorism, based on intelligence, is assessed as SUBSTANTIAL. This means an attack is likely.
In order to counter criminal and terrorist behaviour it is vital that the police have the ability to operate effectively, where necessary to assist in the investigative process to ensure the successful arrest and prosecution of offenders who commit or plan to commit crime or acts of terrorism.
The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built and the police have a clear responsibility to prevent crime, arrest those responsible for committing crime or those that plan to commit crime.
The use of MPS drones is measured and carried out in order to protect the public and apprehend individuals. To disclose information of the type of drones used, would place the MPS at a tactical disadvantage. The UK Police Service has a positive undertaking to protect the public from harm and that duty of care to all involved must be the overriding consideration. It cannot be in the public interest to disclose information which would undermine our ability to detect crime and bring offenders to justice.
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 through disclosure.
Having carefully considered this, I have found that the public release of the Met’s drones capabilities would disrupt policing and assist the offender in avoiding detection.
For these reasons, I have found that the release of the requested call signs is not in the public interest. I have accordingly refused to release this information to you.
Section 43(2) - Commercial Interest - If the MPS were to release the requested information related to cost of drones in our inventory, it would reveal sensitive information that would prejudice our commercial interests.
To release information of this nature into the public domain without the consent or agreement of commercial companies would amount to a severe breach of trust and confidence, such that the MPS would likely lose business. This would prejudice ongoing and future partnership work of this nature.
Disclosing the requested information in full would be prejudicial to the commercial interests of the MPS, as it would cause irreparable damage to relations between the MPS and the relevant commercial companies. There would be a breach of mutual trust, confidence and respect, which is fundamental to the MPS’s ability to form mutually beneficial commercial relationships.
Commercial companies would be less willing to engage with the MPS through fear of disclosure via the Freedom of Information Act or by other means, which would impact upon the selling of our services in the future.
The release of sensitive information would operate to the disadvantage of the MPS, as it would weaken the position of the MPS within a commercial environment. This would have a harmful effect on current partnerships, as well as future partnerships when entering into commercial activities.
It is not in the public interest for the MPS to be negatively affected.
Having considered your request and having examined the associated risk in release, we have found there is a risk to the commercial interests of the MPS. We believe this risk, as outlined above, is both real and likely.
Therefore, it is our opinion that for these reasons the balance test for disclosure is not made out.
Disclosure
In response to your request:
Q6e - Conditions of usage; is it owned, leased, borrowed, etc. If it isn't owned by the police force, please share who the owner is.
The MPS own the drones that we operate.