Operation Reuben

Freedom of Information Act Publication Scheme
Protective Marking	Official
Publication Scheme Y/N	Yes
Title	Operation Herne: Public Complaint Investigation - Operation Reuben
Summary	Operation Reuben was initiated following the receipt of a public complaint made on behalf of the Blacklist Support Group (BSG) by Christian Khan Solicitors (CKS). The BSG alleged that Police were complicit in supplying information about workers to blacklisting organisations and that this personal information was then used to preclude these individuals from employment. (FOI Disclosures to 01.FOI.19.003096 & 002490)
(B)OCU or Unit, Directorate	Data Office
Author	Strategy & Governance - Information Rights Unit
Issued Date	30/11/2022

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.19.003096

I note you seek access to the following information:

What recorded evidence do the MPS have that leads them to think that personal information of the public was passed on to "blacklisting" operation?

How many police were involved in passing this information on?

Were they all from Special Branch?

What has been done to these police to bring them to justice?

What internal sanctions were made against these police and what procedures did they go through?

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.19.002490

I note you seek access to the following information:

I wish to see a full copy of the Operation Reuben report mentioned in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47457330

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).

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) provides the right to request ‘recorded information’ that is held by public authorities. When a request for information is made under 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 an explanation.

Following receipt of your request, I have conducted searches across the MPS to locate information relevant to your request. These searches located the following document that is relevant to your request:

Operation Herne: Public Complaint Investigation - Operation Reuben

Reasons for decision

Having considered this document for release under the Act, I have disclosed it to you in a redacted format, that is, I removed information that I consider to be exempt under the Act. In doing so, I have claimed the following exemptions:

• Section 23(5) - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters
• Section 24(1) - National Security
• Section 30(1)(a) & 30(2)(a) - Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities
• Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Data
• Section 42(2) - Legal Professional Privilege

The MPS neither confirms nor denies that any information is held that would be the subject of Section 23(1) of the Act. In this regard, Section 23(5) of the Act is claimed.

Under Section 24(1) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information that is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. I have claimed this exemption as Operation Reuben examines material that was obtained by officers from the then Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). By virtue of the functions of this unit, being in part to monitor those could incite and/or carry out acts of domestic extremism, this exemption is claimed in respect of information held that was required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

Under Section 30(1)(a) and 30(2)(a) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information that was recorded for the purposes of its functions relating to investigations that it is has a duty to conduct, where the information relates to obtaining information from confidential sources.

I have claimed this exemption as Operation Reuben was the police investigation into alleged police complicity in supplying information about workers to blacklisting organisations. This information was allegedly obtained from confidential sources. This exemption is cited where the information relates to the investigative functions or the investigation itself, where the disclosure of that information would be contrary to the public interest.

Under Section 42(1) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information to which a claim of legal professional privilege applies.

Legal professional privilege is a common law principle that enforces the fact that a communication of a legal nature between a client and professional legal advisor is confidential. Legal professional privilege is intended to ensure that the communication between client and legal advisor remains open, candid and informed. When a public authority seeks to claim legal professional privilege, the dominant purpose of that communication must be to seek and/or provide legal advice. Where such a claim applies, that information cannot be disclosed without consent of the client.

I have claimed this exemption as the requested report contains legal advice.

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, I have chosen to claim Section 24(1), Section 30(1)(a) and 30(2)(a) and Section 42(1) of the Act.

I have carefully examined the importance of accountability and transparency with the general public. Given that Operation Reuben concerns alleged police complicity in supplying information about workers to blacklisting organisations, I consider there to be a compelling public interest in providing as much information as possible about the police investigation and its findings to the general public. In this regard, I believe that an open response would reinforce the MPS commitment to police in a transparent manner and would demonstrate that the police are primarily accountable to the general public. A demonstration of accountability is particularly important in this case, as the allegation concerns police action that would, if proven, constitute a serious breach of trust on behalf of the police. For this reason, I have released a redacted copy of the Operation Reuben report.

In deciding which sections of the report should be withheld from the general public, I have evaluated the harm that release of the requested report would cause. Firstly, having reviewed the report, it is clear that it contains information connected to undercover policing as a tactic and information that records the results of deploying this tactic. Having reviewed this material, I have found that it is possible to release the report whilst removing any material that may undermine future use of this tactic, reveal where this tactic has been deployed and/or reveal the product of this tactic’s deployment. I have removed this information as I do not believe that the public interest supports releasing information that would undermine, directly or indirectly, the ability of police to deploy this tactic in the future.

Secondly, the Operation Reuben report contains information that is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. This material would, through its release, disrupt the process of obtaining this type of information in future and/or reveal, through a series of requests, police knowledge in this area. There are clear links between confidentiality and success in this area of police work and for this reason, I have found that the disclosure of any information required for this purpose of safeguarding, to be contrary to the public interest.

Lastly, the requested report contains legal advice. Having considered this advice for release, I accept that it is historic, case specific and therefore, in isolation, unlikely to cause any harm. I also accept that its public release would contribute to the public's understanding of the decisions taken by the MPS in connection with Operation Reuben. Having considered the wider impact of its release, I have found that the content of the advice is largely immaterial, as its non-disclosure is about maintaining a safe and trusted forum for the provision of free and frank advice between the MPS and recognised professional legal advisors. Having considered your request, I have found that any action that would adversely affect the ability to police to obtain open and candid advice is not in the public interest.

Section 40(2)(a)(b) 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.

The names and other personal information of parties referred to in Operation Reuben have been removed as its disclosure would identify them and make public, their roles in this police investigation.

Having considered the release of each piece of identified personal data I have found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that:

a. The disclosure of names and other personal information of a number of persons identified in the Operation Reuben report, would publicly identify those parties involved in the investigation and lead to their roles in the inquiry being established. The release of factual information about an MPS investigation would satisfy an identifiable legitimate interest.

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

c. The names of a number of parties purportedly involved in Operation Reuben have been published by the media and/or are otherwise in the public domain. The identities of a number of parties remain unknown to the general public. As the identities of those involved in this investigation have not been published by the MPS or any other government body/agency, I do not believe that these parties would reasonably expect the MPS to publish information that would allow them to be identified. Identifying the parties involved in this investigation may lead to unwanted and unsolicited intrusion from the media and/or others interested in the facts of the case. In this regard, I believe that disclosure of this personal data would be likely to cause unwarranted harm to the data subjects in this request.

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

Please note that I have also struck through references to the handling instructions for this document on pages 2 and 5 of this report, as these instructions are no longer applicable to this document.