Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Enf
orce
men
t Act
ion
Log
Education, Police & Justice
Seve
rity
rat
ings
:In
vest
igat
ion
unde
rway
Tot
al:
10
Met
ropo
litan
Pol
ice
Serv
ice
EN
F020
1053
s17,
s45
(ad
vice
& a
ssis
tanc
e (b
iank
et e
xem
ptio
ns)
I 04
/06/
2008
and
IR)
War
ning
le
tter
sent
. Mee
ting
to d
iscu
ss is
sues
hel
dO
pen
Mon
itorin
g to
con
tinue
,ho
wev
er m
eetin
g (N
ov08
) w
as c
onst
ruct
ive.
Six
mon
th fo
llow
mee
ting
to b
e he
ld in
May
200
9
JS
EN
F081
5027
/05/
2008
07/0
2/20
061
s 17
- a
pplic
atio
n of
addi
tiona
lex
empt
ions
dur
ing
cour
se o
fin
vest
igat
ion
(alm
ost 2
yea
rsla
ter)
. Use
of 3
0 &
21+ 1+
PA
sou
ght t
o ne
ither
conf
irm n
or d
eny
whe
the
info
sou
ght w
as h
eld
Rea
sons
for
refu
sal
prov
ided
in IR
ver
batim
to th
ose
prov
ided
in R
Nfo
r th
e m
ost p
ar. R
Mdi
ffic
ultie
s id
entif
ied
atla
ter
stag
e of
inve
stig
atio
n
Pre
enfo
rcem
ent
actio
n le
tter
04/0
6/08
.C
ase
offc
erdr
afte
d te
xtfo
r O
M o
f O
N
Pre
enfo
rcem
ent
acti6
nlet
ter
04/0
6/08
Pre
enfo
rcem
ent
actio
n le
tter
04/0
6/08
.T
ext d
raft
edfo
r O
Mse
ctio
n of
ON
ENF08153 127/05/20081 Audit 1188116
Jenn
ySa
nder
sJS
&1~
~mtH
~1t::
:1 M
etro
polit
an P
olic
e
20/1
1/20
071
s45
(IR
) -
RN
1 P
ost G
uida
nce
advi
ses
that
IR c
anta
ke 3
mon
ths
Pre
enfo
rcem
ent
actio
n le
tter
04/0
6/08
Pre
enfo
rcem
ent
actio
n le
tter
04/0
6/08
Com
plai
nant
I R
efer
ence
I Dat
e of
I D
ate
ofR
eque
stResult of
Com
men
tsC
omm
ents
/issu
esre
ques
tre
fusa
lfo
rlR
IRre
gard
ing
enco
unte
red
notic
epr
oces
sing
duri
ngof
re
uest
investi ation
FS
5008
8977
I 18
/03/
05I 0
1/04
/05
I 19
/04/
05I 1
2/07
/05
I Non
e-R
efus
ed to
pro
vide
proc
ed
u ra
lly
to iea a copy of
fine
.th
e w
ithhe
ld in
fo.
Onl
y di
d so
following IN.
FS
5012
9227
I 07
/02/
0612
6/04
/06
102/
07/0
6I
01/0
8/06
1 L
ate
resp
onse
to in
fo r
eque
st24
/05/
0612
4/05
/06
125/
05/0
6I 2
4/08
/06
I Len
gthy
del
ayto IR
02/0
6/05
\19/
07/0
511
9/03
/06
\21/08/06 1 Late response
09/0
8/05
10/1
0/05
to b
oth
requ
ests
,fa
iled
to d
eal
with
firs
tre
ques
t und
erFO
I. L
engt
hyde
lay
to IR
.F
S50
1697
37 I
08/0
1/07
109/
02/0
711
3/02
/07
I 29
/06/
07 I
Lat
e re
spon
seto
req
uest
.Lengthy delay
to IR.
FS
5010
6800
I 25
/07/
05I 3
0/01
/06
I 20/
10/0
6i N
ever
I Lat
e re
spon
seS
trug
gled
to g
etre
c'd
to r
eque
st. N
ocopy of info-
IR s
een
clas
sed
as 's
ecre
t'.th
ouah
cla
imE
vent
uallv
oos
ted
to h
ave
done
a fe
w e
xam
ples
.on
e.La
ck o
f co-
op w
ithChanging use
caseworker -
of e
xem
ptio
nsha
ving
to c
hase
& v
ery
poor
resp
onse
s. H
ave
PIT
give
n ac
cess
arau
men
ts.
outside of FOI.
..FS
5009
9861
11/0
4/05
27/0
5/05
07/0
6/05
15/1
2/05
Late
res
pons
eLa
ck o
f res
pons
eto
req
uest
tore
sulte
d in
IN. T
his
'r~'p
.;rre
ques
t and
is tu
rn r
esul
ted
inIR
-an
gry
phon
e ca
llco
mpl
aina
ntfr
om P
A. N
o re
ply
chas
edw
as a
ppar
ent f
rom
several times.
IN, h
owev
er w
hen
. -
Very poor
chas
êdit
.see
ms
to,
PIT
have
be
en lo
st in
~f(
argu
men
ts.
the
post
. The
even
tual
rep
lyanswered an
earl
ier
lette
r ra
ther
than
the
IN it
self
sofu
rthe
r qu
estio
nsha
d to
be
rais
ed!
11FS
5010
1864
20/0
5/05
11/0
8/05
21/0
8/05
20/1
2/05
Lat
eLo
ng d
elay
inre
spon
ses
tore
spon
ding
tore
ques
t and
initi
al r
eque
st fo
rIR
req
uest
.ex
plan
atio
n an
dR
eque
st n
otin
fo. H
ad to
cons
ider
ed in
thre
aten
IN.
fulL
. Fiv
eB
roug
ht in
two
exem
ptio
nsm
ore
exem
ptio
nsci
ted,
not
(mak
ing
tota
len
ough
clai
med
- s
even
!).
expl
anat
ion
orD
o no
t wis
h to
PIT
giv
en.
prov
ide
info
toIC
O, c
iting
MO
Uas
rea
son-
sect
ions
23
and
24no
w r
elie
d up
on.
See
ms
how
ever
,th
at in
fo is
onl
ym
arke
d 's
ecre
t' or
not m
arke
d at
alL
.T
his
mat
ter
is s
tilve
ry m
uch
ongo
ing
so th
ere
may
be
mor
e to
add
...
r-FS
5009
0852
seve
ral
Not
cle
arN
ot c
lear
Not
cle
arH
ave
(Cas
e in
clud
edat
tem
pted
tom
ore
for
do b
are
demonstration than
min
imum
dire
ct a
ctio
n. W
asra
ther
than
bein
g ha
ndle
d by
assi
stJo
e Iv
atts
, I'v
eco
mpl
aina
ntta
ken
it fa
irly
in a
nyre
cent
ly.)
man
ner.
Diff
eren
t inf
o ha
sR
eque
sts
been
sen
t to
com
pha
ve g
one
rega
rdin
g sa
me
unan
swer
edre
ques
t and
MP
S
or n
ot b
een
do n
ot s
eem
to b
eco
nsid
ered
able
to e
xpla
in th
is.
under FOI.
Slo
w in
res
pond
ing
to a
ny is
sues
rais
ed, d
o no
tse
em to
kno
w w
hat
they
hav
ere
spon
ded
to a
ndw
hat t
hey
have
not.
Hav
e be
ense
ntcorrespondence by
Joe
in a
n ef
fort
toge
t res
pons
es to
all r
eque
sts
and
none
rec
eive
d. I
have
trie
d ch
asin
gby
tele
phon
e an
ddo
not
rec
eive
cal
lsba
ck.
Upd
ate
(05/
02/0
8)N
igel
Sha
nkst
er a
tM
PS to
ok o
ver
this
mat
ter
and
actu
ally
brou
ght i
t to
aco
nclu
sion
. He
seem
s he
lpfu
l and
will
ng. C
ase
now
clos
ed.
~FS
5016
8043
2 reqs:
21/5
/07
&N
otN
one
Na
Nee
ds to
ask
for
I R-
17/3
/07
& I
15/
6/07
7/6/
07FS
5012
7256
I 2
4/1/
06 I
10/
2/06
requ
este
d
11/4
/06
I 18/
5/06
FS
5015
3447
I 29
/11/
2006
I 29
/1/2
007
129/
1/20
07 1
7/3/
07
FS
5015
3447
11/
9/06
FS
5017
0141
24/
02/0
7F
S50
1230
37 1
4/02
/200
6
27/9
/06
14/0
3/07
20/0
3/07
- said part
of info
requ
este
dnot held
4/10
/06
22/0
3/07
Not
mad
eon
that
poin
t
5/12
/06
04/0
4/07
Not
mad
eon
that
poin
t
No
issu
e re
20 days & IR
time
20 d
ays
not
com
plie
d w
ith,
IR time
OK
Late
res
pons
eto
req
uest
PA
app
eare
d to
real
ise
it di
d ho
ldre
leva
nt in
fo o
nly
whe
n w
e po
inte
d it
out f
rom
a r
elat
edca
se in
Sep
t 07
Met
ropo
litan
Polic
e
EN
F020
1053
- T
he M
etro
polit
an P
olic
e Se
rvic
e: P
ositi
on (
t 7 M
ay 2
008
Enf
orce
men
t Log
Ent
ries:
EN
F060
29Ju
l-D
ec 0
610
6985
Chr
isJP
Lr.
Met
ropo
litan
Pol
ice
12/1
0/20
05s4
5 F
aile
dC
ompl
aint
aud
it to
be
Will
iam
sto
offe
r or
unde
rtak
enconduct a
prop
erin
tern
al
..re
view
EN
F071
0621
/08/
2007
8608
9L
isa
JSM
etro
polit
an P
olic
e09
/02/
2005
s1 -
Com
plai
ntA
dshe
adIn
form
atio
nau
dit t
o be
held
, s.4
6un
dert
aken
(Rec
ord
keep
inq)
.
ON's served:
Cas
e R
ef: F
S50
0875
63D
ate:
20/
09/2
006
Publ
ic A
utho
rity
: Met
ropo
litan
Pol
ice
Serv
ice
Sum
mar
y: T
he c
ompl
aina
nt r
eque
sted
det
ails
of p
olic
ies
and
the
indi
vidu
als
resp
onsi
ble
for
thos
e po
licie
s w
ithin
the
publ
ic a
utho
rity.
The
Com
mis
sion
er's
dec
isio
n in
this
mat
ter
is tw
o fo
ld in
that
the
Pub
lic A
utho
rity
has
not d
ealt
with
the
Com
plai
nant
's r
eque
st in
acc
orda
nce
with
Par
t I o
f the
Act
in th
at it
has
faile
d to
com
ply
with
its
oblig
atio
ns u
nder
sec
tion
1 (1
), s
ectio
n 10
and
sec
tion
17. F
urth
er, t
he P
ublic
Aut
horit
y ha
sap
plie
d se
ctio
n 21
and
thei
r ap
plic
atio
n of
this
is in
par
t, up
held
by
the
Com
mis
sion
er a
s he
is s
atis
fied
that
the
polic
ies
are
avai
labl
e bu
t not
the
indi
vidu
als'
nam
es. T
he P
ublic
Aut
horit
y is
req
uire
d by
this
Dec
isio
n N
otic
e to
pro
vide
som
e of
the
info
rmat
ion
requ
este
d (a
s de
taile
d be
low
)w
ithin
35
days
.
Section of ActlEIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
Vie
w P
DF
of D
ecis
ion
Not
ice
FS
5008
7563
Cas
e R
ef: F
S50
0873
66D
ate:
22/
01/2
007
Publ
ic A
utho
rity
: Met
ropo
litan
Pol
ice
Serv
ice
Sum
mar
y: T
he c
ompl
aina
nt s
ubm
itted
a r
eque
st to
the
publ
ic a
utho
rity
for
info
rmat
ion
rela
ting
to a
n in
vest
igat
ion
unde
rtak
en in
the
early
199
0sin
to a
llega
tions
of c
orru
ptio
n by
em
ploy
ees
of a
loca
l cou
nciL
. The
pub
lic a
utho
rity
advi
sed
the
com
plai
nant
that
alth
ough
its
reco
rds
conf
irmed
that
a fi
le r
elat
ing
to th
is in
vest
igat
ion
had
once
bee
n he
ld, d
ue to
the
time
that
had
ela
psed
sin
ce th
e in
vest
igat
ion
took
pla
ce th
is fi
le h
ad s
ince
been
wee
ded
or d
estr
oyed
. Hav
ing
cons
ider
ed th
e in
form
atio
n av
aila
ble
the
Com
mis
sion
er is
sat
isfie
d th
at th
e in
form
atio
n re
ques
ted
by th
eco
mpl
aina
nt is
no
long
er h
eld
by th
e pu
blic
aut
horit
y.Section of ActlEIR & Finding: FOl1 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld
Vie
w P
DF
of D
ecis
ion
Not
ice
FS
5008
7366
Cas
e R
ef: F
S50
0889
77D
ate:
08/
01/2
008
Publ
ic A
utho
rity
: Met
ropo
litan
Pol
ice
Serv
ice
Sum
mar
y: T
he c
ompl
aina
nt r
eque
sted
the
agre
emen
t lea
ding
to th
e re
inst
atem
ent f
ollo
win
g su
spen
sio.
Q.~
of a
sen
ior
offic
er a
t the
pub
licau
thor
ity. T
he p
ublic
aut
horit
y w
ithhe
ld th
is, c
iting
sec
tions
38
(hea
lth a
nd s
afet
y), 4
0 (p
erso
nal i
nfor
mat
ion)
and
41
(info
rmat
ion
prov
ided
inco
nfid
ence
). F
ollo
win
g th
e in
terv
entio
n of
the
Com
mis
sion
er, t
he p
ublic
aut
horit
y dr
oppe
d its
cla
im th
at s
ectio
n 38
app
lied.
The
Com
mis
sion
erfin
ds th
at th
e ex
empt
ion
prov
ided
by
sect
ion
40(2
) is
not
eng
aged
as,
whi
lst t
he in
form
atio
n in
que
stio
n do
es c
onst
itute
per
sona
l inf
orm
atio
n, it
sdi
sclo
sure
wou
ld n
ot b
reac
h th
e da
ta p
rote
ctio
n pr
inci
ples
. The
Com
mis
sion
er a
lso
finds
that
the
exem
ptio
n pr
ovid
ed b
y se
ctio
n 41
is n
oten
gage
d as
the
info
rmat
ion
in q
uest
ion
was
not
pro
vide
d to
the
publ
ic a
utho
rity
from
a th
ird p
arty
. The
pub
lic a
utho
rity
is r
equi
red
to d
iscl
ose
the
info
rmat
ion
initi
ally
with
held
. Thi
s de
cisi
on n
otic
e is
cur
rent
ly u
nder
app
eal t
o th
e In
form
atio
n T
ribun
aL.
Section of ActlEIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld
Vie
w P
DF
of D
ecis
ion
Not
ice
FS
5008
8977
Pub
licat
ion
sche
me
- N
o re
cord
ed e
ntry
on
CM
EH
, how
ever
like
ly to
hav
e ad
opte
d th
e A
CP
O m
odeL
. Rec
eipt
of d
ecla
ratio
n -
W30
0798
4 on
inte
rim s
yste
m
CM
E
H C
ases
: Pos
ition
cæ
08_
05_0
8.
Sea
rch
crite
ria: s
50 c
ases
I 01
Jan
07
- 08
May
08
-F
S50
1461
76 I
26 A
pril
2006
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
I Unk
now
n. 1 st request unclear
x -
Insu
ffic
ient
info
on
file.
22 M
ay20
06
· 2nd
req
uest
cle
arly
req
uest
s in
form
atio
n
· MPS
res
pons
e ap
pear
s to
be
date
d th
e 13
Jul
y20
06D
elay
s pr
e-gu
idan
ce
· Ext
ensi
ons
for
the
time
to r
espo
nd a
re s
ent o
n th
e27
Jun
e, 1
8 S
epte
mbe
r an
d th
e 2
Nov
embe
r 20
06(p
re g
uida
nce)
FS50
1466
7821 Se
ptem
ber
2006
10 A
pril
2007
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
· MPS
cla
im th
at r
eque
st w
as n
ot r
ecei
ved
until
the
ieo
forw
arde
d it
x ~
Insu
ffic
ient
info
on
file.
-FS
5014
8975
02 J
une
2005
19 J
uly
2005
19 M
arch
2006
21 A
ugus
t20
06. s10 delay
./ - however,
furt
her
case
prog
ress
ion
need
ed09
Aug
ust
2005
- a
lso
requ
est f
orIR
?
10 O
ctob
er20
05-
resp
onse
toIR
?
. IR delay (pre-guidance)
. s17 - RN of 19 July inadequate
· Despite initial acknowledgements to comp
expl
aini
ng th
at th
e m
atte
r w
ould
be
deal
t with
unde
r F
OIA
, the
res
pons
e ex
plai
ns th
at th
e m
atte
rha
s be
en h
andl
ed o
utsi
de o
f the
Act
and
that
the
MP
S a
re u
nwill
ng to
rel
ease
the
info
. Thi
sam
ount
s to
an
insu
ffici
ent R
N
· Som
e co
nfus
ion
surr
ound
ing
num
ber
of r
eque
sts!
RN
's !
IR's
;. w
e ap
pear
to h
ave
cont
ribu
ted
to th
is
- - --
~ -- "-
19 January 121 January I Unknown
FS
5015
0414
I 20
07 2
007
Unk
now
n· s17 - insufficient RN - application of exemptions
not e
xpla
ined
! no
IR
det
ails
sup
plie
d./
- in
res
pect
of r
efus
al o
nly
..FS
5015
3447
29 Nov
embe
r20
06
29 J
anua
ry20
0729
Jan
uary
I 7
Mar
ch2007 2007
. s10
· Delay in responding as documents requested
cont
aine
d in
an
off-
site
arc
hive
(14
Dec
06)
· Complaint procedure (RN of 29 Jan 07) advises
that
'In
all p
ossi
ble
circ
umst
ance
s th
e M
PS
wil
aim
to r
espo
nd to
you
r co
mpl
aint
with
in th
ree
mon
ths.
'
· Some information released on review
( 7.
Mar
07)
)~· I
nade
quat
e IR
- d
id n
ot a
ddre
ss a
pplic
atio
n of
exem
ptio
ns (
7 M
ar 0
7)
./ -
in r
espe
ctof
del
ay a
ndIR
.· Application of blanket exemptions?
FS50
1543
4911 Se
ptem
ber
2006
27 Sept
embe
r20
06
4 O
ctob
er20
065 D
ecem
ber
2006
· IR very limited however - as MPS have opted to
neith
er c
onfir
m o
r de
ny it
cou
ld b
e ar
gued
that
itw
ould
be
diffi
cult
to p
rovi
de m
ore
deta
il,"
i"" .fj
· RN
lim
ited
- po
ssib
ly f
or s
imila
r re
ason
s.~
:~g:
x -
furt
her
inve
stig
atio
non applicabilty of
exem
ptio
nsne
eded
,pa
rtic
ular
ly in
resp
ect o
fw
heth
er th
e
have
bee
napplied as a
'bla
nket
' and
on th
esu
itabi
lity
ofs4
0 as
the
subj
ect o
f the
requ
est i
sde
ceas
ed
FS
5015
7859
I 18 N
ovem
ber
2006
Unk
now
n18 I Unknown
Dec
embe
r20
06
· MPS
cla
im th
at th
ey h
ave
no r
ecor
d of
req
uest
-fo
llow
ing
the
ie's
inte
rven
tion,
it s
eem
s th
at th
ere
ques
t was
pro
cess
ed u
nder
DP
A
x -
Insu
ffic
ient
info
on
file.
. s10
./ -
in r
espe
ctof
del
ayF
S50
1677
18 I
10 M
ay20
07U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
· Sta
ff le
ave
cite
d as
a r
easo
n fo
r de
lay
· Req
uest
app
ears
to h
ave
been
mad
e by
a s
taff
mem
ber
and
this
may
hav
e in
fluen
ced
the
way
inw
hich
it w
as h
andl
ed
..F
S50
1680
43 I
17 M
arch
2007
21 M
ay20
077
June
2007
Unk
now
n· Chain of correspondence - (chronology of IR's &
RN
's in
par
ticul
ar)
is m
uddl
ed
· See related case FS50170141
x -
Insu
ffic
ient
info
on
file.
FS
5016
9014
I 30
Mar
ch20
0723
May
2007
31 M
ay20
0712
Jun
e20
07· A
ppea
r to
hav
e ca
rrie
d ou
t PIT
in r
elat
ion
to th
ird
part
y pe
rson
al d
ata
(RN
of 2
3 M
ay 2
007)
· Hav
e pr
ovid
ed a
dvic
e an
d as
sist
ance
(R
N o
f 23
M~
y 20
07)
x - no
subs
tant
ive
issu
es
.. I FS50169737
8 Ja
nuar
y20
079
Feb
ruar
y20
0713 Fe
brua
ry20
07
29 J
une
2007
· Del
ay in
con
duct
ing
IR (
part
of
whi
ch is
pos
tgu
idan
ce)
· RN
lim
ited
- ho
wev
er th
e de
cisi
on to
nei
ther
conf
irm o
r de
ny m
ay b
e a
fact
or in
this
· IR
uph
olds
ori
gina
l dec
isio
n de
spite
com
plai
nant
sas
sert
ions
that
som
e of
the
info
rmat
ion
is a
lread
yin
the
publ
ic d
omai
n
./ -
in r
espe
ctof
IR
del
ay.
Inve
stig
atio
nm
ay s
hed
mor
e lig
ht o
nth
eap
plic
abili
ty o
fex
empt
ions
Iin
fo a
lread
yav
aila
ble
inthe public
dom
ain
-I F
S50
1698
991
Unk
now
nI
Unk
now
n11
9 Ju
neI
Und
ated
I
.IR
uph
olds
dec
isio
n to
nei
ther
con
firm
or
deny
I X
-20
07In
suff
icie
ntin
fo o
n fil
e.
--FS
5017
0141
24 February
14 M
arch
22 M
arch
Unk
now
n.
Not
cle
ar w
heth
er IR
has
bee
n co
nduc
ted
X -
2007
2007
2007
IIn
suff
icie
nt
I inf
o on
file
.I
-FS
5017
0294
22 M
ay19
Jul
yU
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n.
Sev
eral
exe
mpt
ions
app
ear
to h
ave
been
app
lied,
2007
2007
'with
no
expl
anat
ion
as to
why
- v
ery
mud
dled
RN
./ -
in r
espe
ctw
hich
doe
s no
t ref
lect
fully
the
requ
irem
ents
of
,'.of
s10
del
ays1
7an
d R
N
.s10 delay
.FS
5017
0381
1 M
ay 2
007
18 M
ay23
Apr
il24
Jul
y.
Part
of
requ
est p
roce
ssed
sep
arat
ely
unde
r D
PA-
X -
and
othe
rs20
0720
07 a
nd a
2007
the
RN
app
ears
to im
ply
that
all
of th
e re
ques
ted
corr
espo
nden
ther
eaft
er?
num
ber
ofin
fo w
ill b
e de
alt w
ith a
s a
SA
R -
how
ever
som
e of
ce o
n fil
etim
esth
e in
fo, s
uch
as th
e co
st o
f the
inqu
iry e
tcun
clea
rth
erea
fter
appe
ars
to b
e F
OIA
.E
mai
l of 5
Jun
e 20
07 a
dvis
es 'T
he M
PS
ende
avou
r to
res
pond
to F
OIA
app
eals
with
in 3
mon
ths'
.
. IR declines to confirm or deny in respect of
Section 40, Section 30 and Section 31
. Very muddled chronology of correspondence
. MPS
rep
ly in
res
pect
of
SAR
sug
gest
s th
at s
ome
of th
e in
fo r
eque
sted
is n
ot p
erso
nal d
ata,
and
this
appe
ar to
con
trad
ict e
arlie
r re
spon
ses
FS50
1726
92I
16
June
110
Aug
ust
i 26
June
I U
nkno
wn
'i ·
MP
S' i
nitia
l res
pons
e of
the
20 J
une
2007
app
-ear
sX
-"
,20
0720
0720
07?
to s
uppl
y th
e co
mpl
aina
nt w
ith fo
rms
for
his
corr
espo
nden
com
plet
ion
but d
oes
not a
ddre
ss th
e re
ques
titse
lfce
on
file
uncl
ear
i
.V
ery
mud
dled
cas
e
.FS
5017
3912
6 Ju
ly 2
007
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n.
Pos
sibl
e no
n-re
spon
seX
-In
suff
icie
ntin
fo o
n fil
e.
..FS
5017
4492
16 J
uly
2007
14 A
ugus
t20
072 7
September September
2007 2007
.C
ompl
aina
nt d
irect
ed to
sub
mit
a S
AR
in r
espe
ctof
par
t of t
he r
eque
st -
how
ever
it a
ppea
rs th
at th
eM
PS
hav
e al
so a
dopt
ed to
nei
ther
con
firm
or
deny
whe
ther
info
rmat
ion
is h
eld
X -
no
subs
tant
ive
issu
es
· IR
uph
olds
ori
gina
l dec
isio
n -
appe
ars
to m
ake
adi
stin
ctio
n be
twee
n re
leas
e to
the
'wor
ld' a
nd to
the
com
plai
nant
in r
espe
ct o
f the
SA
R r
oute
· Complainant was advised by IC to exhaust SAR
__ I FS50176308
· RN
adv
ises
com
plai
nant
to s
ubm
it a
SAR
24 J
uly
2007
26 J
uly
2007
26 J
uly
2007
Unk
now
n
· In
the
IC's
opi
nion
the
info
rmat
ion
requ
este
d w
asno
t per
sona
l dat
a an
d as
suc
h th
e re
spon
ses
prov
ided
wer
e in
suffi
cien
t
· The
com
plai
nant
s le
tter
of th
e 26
Jul
y 20
07 s
houl
dha
ve tr
igge
red
an in
tern
al r
evie
w
./ - in
respect of
SAR
conf
usio
n
~i FS50178276
18 J
uly
2007
2 A
ugus
t20
078
Aug
ust
2007
18 Sept
embe
r20
07
· RN
lim
ited,
how
ever
like
ly to
be
due
to th
e M
PS'
deci
sion
to n
eith
er c
onfir
m o
r de
ny
· Com
plai
nant
s re
ques
t for
IR
cha
lleng
es th
ede
cisi
on to
nei
ther
con
firm
or
deny
on
the
basi
sth
at th
e ex
iste
nce
of th
e in
form
atio
n is
alre
ady
know
n pu
blic
ly
x - no
subs
tant
ive
issu
es.
Inve
stig
atio
nre
quire
d to
dete
rmin
eap
plic
abili
ty o
fex
empt
ions
· The
IR
rep
lies
stat
ing
the
fact
that
the
exis
tenc
e of
the
info
rmat
ion
is p
ublic
ly k
now
n do
es n
otne
cess
arily
mea
n it
is h
eld
by th
e M
PS
..F
S50
1784
67 I
17 A
ugus
t20
07U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
. Alleged s10
x -
Insu
ffic
ient
info
on
file.
..FS
5017
9851
22 M
ay20
0726
Jul
y20
0731
Jul
y20
0,&
¡
Unk
now
n· R
eque
st m
ade
to a
pol
ice
stàt
ion
- re
spon
se s
ent
from
the
'Sut
ton
Par
tner
ship
' - a
dvis
ed th
at in
fow
as n
ot h
eld
by P
olic
e an
d th
at th
e re
spon
se h
adbe
en fo
rwar
ded
to th
e C
ounc
il
x - no
subs
tant
ive
issu
es.
. Possible inappropriate transferral of request in
term
s of
kee
ping
the
com
plai
nant
info
rmed
, and
failu
re to
rec
ogni
se a
req
uest
for
revi
ew b
ut b
oth
are
min
or is
sues
in th
e co
ntex
t of t
his
com
plai
nt
.F
S50
1856
87 I
27 A
pril
2007
28 J
une
2007
30 J
uly
2007
7 Sept
embe
r20
07
. s10
./ -
in r
espe
ctof
s10
and
IRde
lay
. Delayed IR (post guidance)
-I
FS50
1860
40I
15 M
arch
118
May
116 August 18 October
I
.C
larif
icat
ion
soug
ht o
n th
e 30
Mar
ch -
dat
es o
n20
0720
072007 2007
whi
ch th
is w
as p
rovi
ded
uncl
ear
and
as s
uch,
it is
./ -
in r
espe
ctdi
fficu
lt to
ass
es w
heth
er th
e M
PS
bre
ache
d s
10of
IR
del
ay
.D
elay
in p
rovi
ding
IR (
post
gui
danc
e)
-FS
5018
6880
26 A
pril
25 M
ayU
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n.
Insu
ffici
ent i
nfor
mat
ion
on fi
leI
X -
2007
2007
Insu
ffic
ient
info
on
file.
..i F
S501
8690
111
4U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
.M
PS
con
tend
that
the
requ
est w
as n
ot r
ecei
ved
X -
Nov
embe
rIn
suff
icie
nt20
07in
fo o
n fil
e.
..FS
5018
8116
2015
Jan
uary
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
.M
PS
see
k cl
arifi
catio
n on
the
23 N
ovem
ber
2007
X -
Nov
embe
r20
08In
suff
icie
nt20
07.
The
info
rmat
ion
was
rel
ease
d to
the
com
plai
nant
,in
fo o
n fil
e.bu
t dat
e on
whi
ch c
larif
icat
ion
was
sub
mitt
ed is
uncl
ear
-I F
S50
1905
2211
4 A
ugus
tI ~
ePte
mbe
r
217
Janu
ary
.N
o at
tem
pt to
offe
r ad
vice
and
ass
ista
nce
inv"
- in
res
pect
2007
Nov
embe
r20
07re
spec
t of
the
appl
icat
ion
of s
12
(see
ref
usal
of
the
of s
16/ s
4520
0720
074
Sept
embe
r)A
&A
FS50
1906
6818
Oct
ober
1215
17 J
anua
ry.
Del
ayed
IR (
post
gui
danc
e)
Iv"
- in
res
pect
2007
Nov
embe
rN
ovem
ber
2008
of IR
del
ay20
0720
07
FS50
1999
25U
nkno
wn
07 March
23U
nkno
wn
.In
suffi
cien
t inf
orm
atio
n on
file
2008
Febr
uary
I X
-'.' i
2008
,-~l
Insu
ffic
ient
info
on
file.
Cas
es p
reda
ting
01 J
an 2
007
take
n fr
om T
eam
2's
issu
e lo
g
FS50
0889
77I
18 M
arch
I 01
Apr
ilI
01 a
nd12
Jul
y.
IR d
elay
(pr
e-da
tes
guid
ance
)1.
/ - in
res
pect
2005
2005
agai
n on
2007
of IN
19 April
.IN
issu
ed fo
llow
ing
refu
sal t
o pr
ovid
e IC
O w
ith20
05w
ithhe
ld in
form
atio
n (1
Aug
ust 2
007)
(fol
low
ing
mee
ting)
II
.R
N is
lim
ited,
how
ever
rel
ativ
ely
early
day
s in
resp
ect o
f the
Act
's im
plem
enta
tion
.IR
ext
rem
ely
limite
d an
d as
a r
esul
t not
conv
ersa
nt w
ith th
e s4
5 C
ode
.D
N is
sued
- fi
nds
in b
reac
h of
sec
tions
1 (
1) (
a) -
subj
ect t
o an
app
eal
..FS
5012
9227
07 February
26 A
pril
2 July
1 A
ugus
t.
s10 delay
.. -
in r
espe
ct20
0620
0620
0620
06ofs10, s17
.D
elay
s in
res
pond
ing
to IC
O I
diffi
culti
es in
and
dela
ys in
cont
actin
g M
PS
(se
e le
tter
of 1
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
08)
resp
ondi
ng to
ICO
.E
xem
ptio
ns in
trod
uced
dur
ing
inve
stig
atio
n,therefore a breach of s17 (1) (see em
ail o
f the
24
January 2008)
FS50
1392
1524
May
24 M
ay25
May
24 A
ugus
t.
IR d
elay
(pr
e-gu
idan
ce)
-/ -
in r
espe
ct20
0620
0620
0620
06of
s17
.R
efus
al o
f the
24
May
fails
to m
eet t
here
quire
men
ts o
f s17
(no
app
eal r
ight
s/po
orex
plan
atio
n of
exe
mpt
ions
)
FS50
1068
0025
Jul
y20
0530
Jan
uary
2006
Var
ious
Unk
now
n.
Alth
ough
ref
usal
was
pro
vide
d on
the
30 J
anua
ry20
06, M
PS
did
invi
te th
e co
mpl
aina
nt to
vie
w th
edo
cum
enta
tion
prov
ided
that
an
unde
rtak
ing
not t
odi
sclo
se c
erta
in p
arts
of t
he in
form
atio
n w
assi
gned
(le
tter
of th
e 31
Aug
ust 2
005)
· In connection with the above, MPS provided a
form
for
the
com
plai
nant
to s
ign
whi
ch m
ade
refe
renc
e to
info
rmat
ion
whi
ch is
exe
mpt
und
ers3
1 an
d s3
8 of
the
Act
· A r
eque
st f
or r
evie
w is
sub
mitt
ed o
n th
e 22
Sept
embe
r 20
05 in
rel
atio
n to
the
unde
rtak
ing
-th
is s
houl
d ha
ve b
een
deal
t with
und
er s
45
· A s
econ
d re
ques
t for
rev
iew
is s
ent o
n th
e 21
December 2005
· A th
ird
requ
est f
or r
evie
w is
sub
mitt
ed o
n th
e 19
Oct
ober
200
6
· Mat
eria
l sou
ght i
s ov
er 1
00 y
ears
old
and
as
such
,some of
the
exem
ptio
ns c
ited
(s31
) ca
nnot
app
ly
· Refusal of 30 January 2006 contains limited PIT
argu
men
ts
· Co-
oper
atio
n of
MPS
dur
ing
inve
stig
atio
n po
or
· Num
erou
s ad
ditio
nal e
xem
ptio
ns a
dded
dur
ing
cour
se o
f inv
estig
atio
n
-/ -
in r
espe
ctof
s10
, s17
,s4
5 an
dre
stri
ctiv
eap
proa
ch
õQ) -0.1'C/ ..Q) C/.. -c: 0.- ..I C/ LO" \t ""~ 0 C/
c:Q)0.
Q) .0.. c:.. ro.9 C/"0 roQ) c:C/ 0ro:; .-Q) ro I'- c: 0~ 0)0C/ ïñ Nro Q) Q)~ "0 §c: .$ -:.Q ';'0ro c: NE'- Q).. ~ ..o 0..\t - \t.!:.E 0..Q) .. Q).. c: .... ro ..\t c: Q)O'm '-Q) 0. "E
E E 0000(f ü ~
.
"0Q)Õ::"0c:oü..oc:C/
~0:
Q)C/
~ r5Q) C/
ã; £C/ \t
C/ 0Q) 0)tó .!:E -gz roo ....¡t 0ro 0-0 0.Q) ên.. a.:: ~o Q)c: ..o +-
15£Q) C/C/ Q)~ 0O c:~Q) Q).. \t
I- ~
;:ro~LOoQ)..+-c: .-o "0"0 2Q) .-"0 Üc: c:Q) .QX Õ.Q) EQ) Q)C/ Xc: Q)o 0g- c:~ .... ~.E ~Q) 0E ..~ ..'-LO00.. 0C/ N
.
Q)....0)c:c:o0...C/o0.Õ1i8o.."0.~0.0.ro 0)co .!(' "0C/ "0"0 Q)c: ~ro -.. ~c; e.
I-a."0Q)+-'Ë:.roC/
~..ooa.
.
..oo0.~Q);:0:
.
Q)..+-
;:ro
ID"00:
Q)"0ïñ..::oC/
~C/:.+-o+-Q)
ê Q)o ro0. 0C/ C/Q) Q).. Ei :;
"0 "0Q) Q):: :i~ "Ë"- ..z ~
roE...Ec:
õ..::C/
~roC/ro"0Q)C/oÕC/i5C/
~o c:1: 0.- :¡Q) ::E 0o C/(f ~
.
c:.:. .
..Q).0EQ) LOÜO
LO Q) 0.. 0 N
0)c:o... .
Q)c: LO
:: 0 '.-: 0I' N,
;:ro~ LO0I' 0NN
'Co.LO.: 0.. 0.. N
..coco0)0)ooLO(fLL
.~.
-FS
5010
1864
20 M
ay11
Aug
ust
21 A
ugus
t20
.s1
0./
- in
res
pect
2005
2005
2005
Dec
embe
rof
s10
, s17
,20
05.
IR d
elay
(pr
e-gu
idan
ce)
s45
.IN
thre
aten
ed
.s1
7 -
poor
ref
usal
, lac
k of
exp
lana
tion
for
PIT
give
n th
e nu
mbe
r of
exe
mpt
ions
cite
d. D
oesn
'tap
pear
to c
onsi
der
the
requ
est i
n its
ent
irety
.M
PS
rep
ly o
f the
11
Oct
ober
200
5 ap
pear
s to
have
ove
rlook
ed th
e IR
ele
men
t of t
heco
mpl
aina
nts
refu
sal
, ,_.
~.
IR d
oes
little
to s
ugge
st th
at a
trul
y fr
esh
~ ..-
cons
ider
atio
n of
mat
ters
was
und
erta
ken
.A
dditi
onal
exe
mpt
ions
app
lied
durin
g co
urse
of
inve
stig
atio
n -
relu
ctan
ce to
pro
vide
ICO
with
all
of th
e w
ithhe
ld in
form
atio
n
-.FS
5009
0852
Var
ious
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n.
Initi
al r
espo
nse
from
MP
S (
09 S
epte
mbe
r 20
05)
-..
- in
res
pect
(inc
ludi
ng 7
advi
ses
that
'The
issu
es y
ou r
aise
are
not
cov
ered
of m
uddl
edSe
ptem
ber
by F
OIA
're
spon
ses
2005
).
MP
S a
ppea
rs to
hav
e m
uddl
ed r
espo
nses
and
isun
clea
r on
wha
t inf
orm
atio
n ha
s al
read
y be
enpr
ovid
ed. I
n m
itiga
tion,
it s
eem
s th
at th
e re
ques
tsth
emse
lves
wer
e fa
irly
conf
usin
g (4
7 re
ques
ts in
tota
l, su
bmitt
ed a
t var
ious
tim
es)
-FS
5012
7256
Num
erou
s2
Feb
ruar
y11
Apr
il18
May
.M
PS
res
pons
e ad
vise
s th
at in
fo n
ot h
eld
'as
may
'"..
- in
res
pect
(inc
ludi
ng20
0620
0620
06ha
ve b
een
dest
roye
d'of
s46
24 J
anua
ry20
06)
.M
PS
app
ear
to h
ave
soug
ht c
larif
icat
ion
via
the
iea from the complainant. This occurred during
the
inve
stig
atio
n an
d ar
guab
ly s
houl
d ha
ve b
een
carr
ied
out f
rom
the
outs
et
.S
ugge
stio
n of
rec
ord
man
agem
ent d
iffic
ultie
s(le
tters
of t
he 2
& 7
Apr
il 20
08)
- no
cen
tral
ised
reco
rds
for
hist
oric
al r
ecor
ds?
(lette
r of
18
Apr
il20
08)
.R
eluc
tanc
e to
pro
vide
iea
with
rel
evan
t inf
o, a
ssu
gges
ted
in p
revi
ous
case
s
iI
i
-FS
5012
3037
14 F
ebru
ary
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
Unk
now
nIr
rele
vant
- c
ase
conc
erns
the
Met
ropo
litan
Pol
ice
N/A
2006
Aut
hori
ty, a
lthou
gh th
ere
may
be
issu
es in
res
pect
of
the
corr
ect t
rans
ferr
al o
f req
uest
s
Cla
rifi
catio
n re
quir
ed:
Leng
th o
f com
plai
nt p
roce
dure
(R
osen
baum
com
plai
nt a
nd o
ther
s)
ENF0201053 - The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) -
Recommendation for progression of case
Cases considered:
2 Enforcement Log entries (1069851'86089) - both relate to requests from2005 í30 cases received from 01 January 2007 to 08 May 2008 (including thosefalling within this date range from the Team 2 issue log)
9 cases from Team 2 issues log which predate the above
Total: 41* (one of which relates to MPA but is included on account of thepossible transferral of request issues)
* this does not represent the total number of complaints received about theMPS (approx 61 s50 cases)
Patterns arising i notable points:
s 10 breaches
4 3 3 o
148975 -.- 129227 __ 167718--
146176 --. 170294--106800 -.. 153447 -
99861-'- 185687 --101864 -.087563-"(ON issued)
517
· Poor explanation of application of exemptions in the context of theinformation withheld (148975 _2005 /150414__ 2007)
. Poor PIT's (099861__ 2005)
. Extension of time to respond to request without explaining which
exemption is applicable (17 (1)) (146176'-2006)
. Application of blanket exemptions - particularly s24 (national security),s30 (investigations), s31 (law enforcement), s38 (health and safety). Inone case (10680~2005) s31 was applied to informationwhich was over 100 years old, in another s38 was applied to the cost ofpostponing the Royal Wedding (099861_2005)
. Introduction of additional exemptions during investigation ( 129227~006)545
. IR's do not appear to take a truly fresh look at matters, although in
mitigation there are examples of information which has been releasedon review (153447 2006)
. Examples of requests dealt with outside the Act's parameters (14897572005 / 170381_(OPA) 2007/ 174492_(OPA)
2007/176308 (OPA) 2007/106800 2005)
. Post guidance IR delays: 4
169737 13Feb07 29 June 07 90 days + Partly post¡ .. guidance2007).
185687 30 July 07 7 Sept 07 29 days Need to: . determine2007) whether
extensionjustified
186040(_ 16 Aug 07 8 act 07 38 days Need to2007) determine
whetherextensionjustified
190668 15 Nov 07 17 Jan 08 40 days Need to- (allowing for determine2007) bank whether
holidays) extensionjustified
s46
· Delays in responding due to inform~tion held in off-site archives(153447 2006)
. Some difficulties in determining the fate of historical information(127256 m ; 2006)
. Record keeping raised as an issue within CEAF (86089 2005)
Relationship with ICO
. IN's issued or threatened in various cases (88977
101864. 2005)2005/
· Numerous instances of questioning why ICO required to see withheldinformation
Conclusions:
The most notable characteristic of MPS' responses is the application ofstringent exemptions, some of which appear to have been applied in a blanketmanner. Whilst there is certainly room for improvement in this respect, this issomething that could be approached informally at the present time. Such anapproach is supported by the need to ensure that we fully understand thesensitivities of the information the MPS holds before drawing furtherconclusions from the use of exemptions.
In respect of the procedural failings, there is room for improvement in respectof refusal notices, but I am not particularly concerned about the MPS'adherence to section 10 at present.
There is also scope to for the MPS to develop their approach to internal
reviews. At present they are failing to demonstrate that they are taking a trulyfresh consideration of matters. Additionally, their current complaint proceduredoes not appear to have adopted the timescales recommended by theCommissioner.
In respect of MPS' relationship with the ICO, there is scope for a morepositive relationship between the two parties - however given our experiencewith other PA's I'm not overly concerned that it departs significantly from thenorm.
Finally, the MPS have suggested that there is a problem with the handling ofrequests on account of the un-centralised process. The MPS appear receptiveto the ICO's advice on this issue - see email of 06 February 2008 from DW toJPL.
Recommendation:
That the Enforcement Team approaches MPS on an informal basis tohighlight the following concerns:
o Refusal Notices (o Timescales for IR's I Reconsideration of issues at IRo Use of blanket exemptions
Should the informal approach fail to elicit an appropriate response, formalaction may be considered.
Date I Officer: 13 May 2008 - Jo Stones, FOI Enforcement Officer
Page 1 of 1
From: Joanne StonesSent: 13 May 2008 16:58
To: Jo Pedder
Subject: The Met
Hi Jo,
Just to let you know the reference for the MPS Enforcement case: ENF0201053.
I'll be in touch once the informal letter to them is drafted and send you a copy. I've agreed with J-P that themain topics it will cover are as follows:
Refusal Notices
Timescales for IRs / Reconsideration of issues at IRApparent use of blanket exemptions
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss further
Jo
5344
fie://C:\temp\(Ref. ENF0201053) .html 01/0412009
Page 1 of2
From: Joanne Stonessent: 27 May 2008 13:39
To: Jo Pedder
Subject: The Met - Enforcement Letter
HiJo,
Attached is a draft of the letter I'm planning to send out to the Met later this week. As it references a number of caseswhich are still under investigation, I thought it may be helpful for you to see it.
The letter covers the following issues arising from the MPS' handling of requests:
Explanation of the application of exemptions is limited or generic (including reference to the duty to confirm ordeny)Application of additional exemptions during the course of investigationTimescale for internal reviewsReconsideration of issues at review
Although the number of issues covered is relatively small, they are novel and the need to include examples has resultedin a rather lengthy letter. The cases used as examples within the letter are listed in the table below,
If you (or anyone else on your team) would like an explanation as to why a particular case has been included or moregeneral detials about our approach feel free to give me a shout.
Hope this if helpfuL.
Jo
5344
Case / Complainant Offcer \ ,Status
" ' "
FS50106800 - Carolyn "owes Open
FS50170294 - Helen Jarman Closed
0FS50150414 - Aaminah Khan Closed
,
FS50154349 - FOI Team 2 Open.FS50169737 - FOI Team 2 . ,Open
","
FS50129227 - Elizabeth Hogan Open
fie:! IC:\temp\(Ref. ENF020 1053 J .html 01104/2009
Page 2 of2
FS50101864 - lo Pedder Open
¡
i:aFS50153447 - FOI Team 2 Open
FS50188116- Jennifer Sanders Closed
fie:IIC:\temp\(Ref. ENF0201053) .html 01/04/2009
· Reasonable opportunity for you to inspect a record containing theinformation; and/or '
· A digest or summary of the information in permanent form or in anotherform acceptable to you
We will comply with your preferred form of presentation as far as it isreasonably practicable. In determining whether it is reasonably practicable,we will review all the circumstances, including the cost.
Where we are unable to comply with your preferred format, we will notify as tothe reasons why. Where you have not specified your preferred method ofcommunication, we will provide the information by any means reasonable inthe circumstances.
Where a request for information has been made successfully, we will adviseyou in writing of the following:
. The decision;
. The date on which it was made;
. The name and designation of the pèrson who dealt with the request;
. Form and manner of access; and '· Your right to complain, including details of the internal complaints
procedure and the Information Commissioner's details.
Where a Request is RefusedWhere we receive a request for information and its release is refused, we willadvise you, the applicant, within 20 days, of the following:
. The decision;
. The day on which it was made;
. The name and designation of the person who dealt with the request;
. The grounds for refusing the request, e.g. the application of an exemption,in the public interest, cost of compliance;
. When exemption/s are used, the specific exemption used and the reasonsfor using the exemption;
· When the public interest test has been considered, the reasons why it wasapplied;
. Any other issues relevant to the deèision or matters that were taken into
consideration; and· Details for the internal procedures for dealing with complaints and your
right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision notice.
Note: The Police Service is not obliged to state why an exemptionapplies if by doing so, exempt information would be revealed.
12
Dealing with Vexatious or Repeat RequestsThe Police Service can refuse to process an FOI request if we consider it tobe either vexatious or repeated, or both.
If this is the case, we will inform you within 20 days of receiving the request.At the same time, we will provide details about our internal procedures fordealing with complaints and your right to apply to the InformationCommissioner for a decision notice.
If a notice has already been issued that a request is repeated or vexatious, wewill not send out a further notice.
Where a second request is received for information that has already beenprovided and the second request is identical or substantially similar, we wilnot comply with the request unless a reasonable time has elapsed betweenthe two requests.
The Complaints ProcedureOur decisions and actions on any request will be logged and recorded. Thesewill be retained, together with any other pertinent information in the event of acomplaint.
Structure of ReviewWe have rigorous procedures in place to ensure that the original decision-maker wil provide an independent reviewer with all the information relevant toprocessing the complaint.
We will review the following aspects of the request:
. Timescales.
. Was the applicant kept informed?
· Was the applicant helped to locate information if not held by PoliceService?
· Was the response communicated in the format preference of theapplicant? If not, why not?
· Was a transfer or partial transfer of request made? If so, was this handledcorrectly?
· Was a fees notice served and the principles of the charging regimeapplied?
. Was a refusal notice served?
· If the request appeared to be vexatious, was the correct procedurefollowed and the correct decision reached?
· Was the information requested sourced correctly?· Was there a need to obtain additional information?· Were all systems and information directories searched in response to the
information requested?· Were any problems encountered in obtåining the information from the
information owners?
13
· Analysis of decisions made by the FOI decision-maker in relation to anyexemptions applied.
· Analysis of the application of the public interest test and the resultingdecision.
· Review of comments made by information owners (if any) regardingdisclosure of the information.
· Discussion with the FOI decision-maker with regard to their decision logs(if appropriate).
Involving the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)The ICO will only accept complaints AFTER the complaint has beenprocessed through the force's own internal complaints procedure., .\...Once the complaint has been reviewed by the ICO, it will be returned to thesubmitting force, at which point it becomes subject to that force's own internalprocesses once more.
The responsibility for monitoring the operation of the FOI Act and enforcingobligations placed upon public authorities lies primarily with InformationCommissioner.
Failure to comply with notices issued will be treated as contempt of court.
The Information Commissioner has the power:
. To issue decision notices;
· To enforce the right of access to information; and. Enforce sanctions.
TimingIt is the Police Service's policy to deal with ¡complaints and appeals in a timelymanner. Thus, the target time for responding to appeals and complaintsshould be as soon as practicable and in any case within three months.
14
ENF0201053 ~o/- 1 -
Information Commissioner's Office
Merilyne DaviesHead of the Public Access OfficeMetropolitan Police ServicePublic Access OfficePO Box 57192LondonSW61SF
Promoting public access to official informationand protecting your personal information
04 June 2008
Our Case Reference Number: ENF0201053
Dear
Freedom of Information Act 2000Audit of Complaints
I write in my capacity as a member of the Information Commissioner's Office's(ICO) Good Practice and Enforcement Team.
As part of our role in accessing compliance with the Freedom of InformationAct 2000 (the 'Act' and the associated Codes of Practice, we have recentlyconducted an audit of section 50 complaints 1 which concern the MetropolitanPolice Service (MPS). The purpose of this letter is to request your views on anumber of matters, based on our findings from the audit.
(1) Audit of section 50 complaints
The complaints we considered are provided at Annexe 1 of this letter. Weseek to reassure you that the inclusion of a particular complaint does notnecessarily indicate that the request was dealt with inappropriately. Rather,we include details of all the cases we considered as we recognise that it maybe a useful addition to the MPS' own records.
The complaints covered in the audit are as follows:
Cases received by the ICO from the 1 January 2007 to 9 May 2008(the date on which the audit commenced)
Case receipts predating 1 JamJary 2007 of particular concern to theCommissioner's FOI Education Policeand Justice Complaints TeamI)(Team 2) ,
Please note that we have not considered the entirety of section 50 complaintssubmitted to the Commissioner.
) Section 50 'Application for decision by the (Information) Commissioner'
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AFt: 01625 545700 f: 01625 524510 e: mail4Pico,gsî.gov.uk ww,ico.gov,uk
- 2-
(crYENF0201053
(2) Possibilty of Enforcement ActionInformation Commissloner,la Office
Promoting public access to offìcial informationand pl"Qtecting your personal information
The purpose of auditing Section 50 complaints is to establish whether or not itwould be appropriate to initiate enforc,ement action against an authority. Inrespect of the MPS, we think it unlikely thÇ:¡Hormal Enforcement Action2 will beappropriate on this occasion, but would like to request clarification on anumber of issues. As part of your response to these requests, the MPS maywish to take the opportunity to detail any improvements already undertaken, inprogress or planned by the authority in respect of request handling.
We recognise that the MPS has made some notable progression in thehandling of requests since the early days of the Act's implementation. Inparticular my colleagues with responsibilty for investigating MPS complaintshave noted that the timeliness and quality of correspondence from theauthority to this office has improved.
(3) Observations on request handling
The remainder of this letter details the areas with which we have particularconcern. We would welcome further clarification I comments on these areasas appropriate.
(3.1) Section 17 and the applicatioo Qf exemptions1; ,j _"::'~
¡ cOur concerns regarding the applicatión o(exemptions can be summarised asfollows:'
(a) Explanation of the application of exemptions is limited or generic
(b) Additional exemptions introduced during the course of the section 50investigations
(a) Explanation of the application of exemptions is limited or generic
We recognise that there are circumstances under which it would be difficult toprovide detailed explanations on the application of exemptions withoutrevealing the very substance of the information the MPS wishes to withhold.
Nevertheless, section 17 of the Act requires that authorities provide details onwhich exemptions apply and why.
Some of the refusal notices issued by t,he MPS apply exemptions to theentirety of the documentation held and'present rather generic arguments fordoing so. We are concerned that this !mayleave the MPS open to the
2 Details on the types of enforcement action this office can take can be found in the ieo's FOI
Enforcement Strategy, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience.
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AFt: 01625 545700 f: 01625 524510 e: mail(§ico.gsi.gov.uk ww.ico,gov,uk
- 3-
&rJENF0201053
Information CammlesfonerJs OfficePromoting public access to official information
and protecting your personal infornistion
suggestion that exemptions are being applied in a 'blanket' fashion, withoutconsideration of the factors applicable to individual cases.
For example, we are concerned that the MPS requested thatsign a "form of undertaking', with the ir:tention of limiting the distribution of theinformation sought. We appreciate that" 's request wassubmitted some time ago and that procedyres may have changed in theinterim, but we would like to make clear tnè't the Act does not make provisionsfor such a practice. We would be grateful if you could confirm whether the'form of undertaking' approach is still in use, and if so why the MPS considersthis to be necessary.
In terms of more recent cases, the refusal notice issued to ~ onthe 19 July 2007 contained references to numerous exemptions without anadequate explanation of their relevance or application. I provide an extractfrom this refusal notice as an example:
'I previously prepared the following generic passages, focussing on the issuesyou raise, that appear to be the catalyst for this request. I could explain thesefurther if necessary but you should presume that Sections 24,30,31,38,40,44wil inevitably apply to the 'intellgence source' issues you raise. OtherSections could also apply subject to the actual intellgence product that therequest refers to'.
The issues raises are r:qvel iif that some of his correspondenceadopts a 'question and answer' approaêh. Nevertheless, we would expect theMPS to explain the application of exemptidtis in accordance with therequirements of section 17. Essentially, we wish to see refusal notices whichcomply with the legislation as 'stand alone' documents. Refusals which do notcontain all of the relevant requirements, or rely on further exchanges in orderto cover the salient points will inevitably fail to comply with the Act.
Some of the earlier refusals issued by the MPS, such as that provided to .
~ in August 2005 invoke the exemptions provided at 30 and 31 of the
Act. A similar approach is indicated in more recent cases including _4and~, where both sections 30 and 31 are implied from the outset orintroduced during the course of investigation. Although we recognise that theapproach may have changed over time, we would like to take this opportunityto remind the MPS that section 31 makes clear that where section 30 applies,section 31 cannot be used.
3 ICO reference FS501 06800 - MPS reference 2007.0200017754 ICO reference FS50170294 - MPS referencé'200706000363151CO reference FS50101864 - MPS referenhè!20050600003061CO reference FS50129227 - MPS referencè 20Ô'l020001612
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire. SK9 5AFt: 01625 545700 f: 01625 524510 e: mailC1ico. gsi. gov. uk ww.ico,gov.uk
ENF0201053
l=rY-4-
Information Commissioner's OfficePromoting public access to official information
and protecting your personal information
In the case of 7, the refusal notice issued did notprovide an adequate explanation of the application of exemptions, and did notprovide any details on the balance of public interest in respect of section 31.The refusal also failed to provide details of the internal review procedure.
Interestingly, the refusal provided to_appears to have been issuedby Marylebone Police Station, which we understand to be within the auspicesof the MPS. We would be interested in your comments as to whether this hadany impact upon the way the request was handled, for example are requestsfor outlying stations usually dealt with6entrally within the MPS? (a copy of therefusal issued to is enclosedfQF~your reference).
In addition to the above we would also be grateful for your comments on theMPS' general approach to refusal notices, for example:
- Are templates / standard paragraphs used to create refusal notices?
Are particular staff members given responsibility for drafting refusalsand what type of training have they undertaken in this respect?
Is there a checking procedure the refusal notices follow before they aresent to the requester? If so, would it be possible to provide us withdetails of this procedure?
The duty to confirm or deny
Whilst recognising the inherent difficulties in communicating the fact that theMPS wishes to neither confirm nor deny that the information is held, we areconcerned that by providing very Iimitep information, the MPS may be lendingfurther credence to the suggestion that "bla,riket' exemptions are being appliedto some requests. ' "
We would welcome any comments you may have on the handling of requestswhich invoke exemptions in relation to the requirement to confirm or deny theexistence of information (section 1 (1) (a)). For example;
Have there been any incidences of information being erroneouslyprovided to a requester by providing too much detail within a refusal? Ifso, what was the impact upon the MPS?
Does the MPS employ a standard approach to neither confirm nor denycases? If so how does this approach operate and does it reflect adviceprovided by ACPO or similar?
71CO reference FS50150414 - MPS reference unknown
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe HDCJse, .Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK8 5AFt: 01625 545700 f: 01625 52451 Oe: mt:il(ÇidJ,gsLgov.uk www.ico.gov.uk
- 5-
~eYENF0201053
Information Commissioner's OfficePromoting public access to official information
and pr-otee'ting your personal informa'tion
To illustrate some of the cases we have considered in which the MPS optedto neither confirm nor deny that information is held, I have enclosed copies ofthe refusal notices issued to and._.(b) Additional exemptions introduced during the course of the section50 investigations
In the case of_o, the refusal notice issued on the 26 April 2006 citedthe following exemptions:
s30 - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authoritiess38 - Health and safety
s44 - Prohibitions on disclosure
During the Commissioner's investigation into the handling ofrequest, the MPS sought to rely on various additional exemptions including:
s23 - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with securitymatterss24 - National securitys31 - Law enforcements40 - Personal data
The first of these additional exemptions (section 24) appears to have beenintroduced in January 2008 and the remainder in April 2008, almost two yearsafter the initial refusal was issued.
As detailed in the decision of the Information Tribunal in Bowbrick v Nottingham
City Councilll, the fact that an exemption is introduced after the initial refusaldoes not in itself disentitle an authority from relying upon it. However, theCommissioner would inevitably find that the authority had breached therequirements of section 17 by failing tdjnform the applicant of the exemption itsought to rely on within the appropriatetiniescale.
.i:\'
Such breaches of section 17 are of obvious concern to the Commissioner.Furthermore, the application of an alternative or additional exemption at a latestage may suggest the initial refusal or internal review (or possibly both) wasnot afforded appropriate consideration. For example, in the aforementioned
8 iea reference FS50154349 - MPS reference 20060900033279 iea reference FS50169737 - MPS reference 2007010002228IQ iea reference FS50129227 - MPS reference 2006020001612i i Available at
http://ww. informationtribu nal. gov. u k/Documents/decisions/Dr%20 P%20Bowbrick%20v%20 Information%20Commissioner%20and%20Notting ham%20C ity%20Cou ncil%20(28 %20September%202007)v7307. pdf
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AFt: 01625545700 f: 01625524510 e: mailcgico,gsí.gov.uk www.ico.gov,uk
- 6-
~~ENF0201053
Information Commissioner's OfficePromoting public access to offìcìal ínformation
and pl'otecting your personal information
request from , the reasons given for withholding the information atthe internal review stage were for the most part identical to those presented inthe original refusal notice. Perhaps more notably, key issues such as theapplicability of section 40 do not appear to have been considered as part ofthe refusal or the review.
As before we would be grateful for your comments on the MPS' approach tothe application of exemptions, with particular reference as to whether theintroduction of exemptions at a late stage tends to result from a intrinsicchange of circumstances, or whether it may be attributed to insufficientconsideration of the initial refusal and / or review.
In concluding this section we seek to reassure you that we recognise that theinformation held by the MPS is not static, and that circumstances can change.As such we do not wish to discourage the MPS from introducing exemptionsduring the course of an investigation where it is appropriate to do so. Howeverwe expect the substantive consideration on applicability to have beencompleted before the authority's own;refu~el / review process has beenexhausted and would expect steps to be tciken to minimise the likelihood ofadditional exemptions being applied during the course of investigation.
(3.2) Section 45 Code of Practice
As the MPS will know, the section 45 Code of Practice sets out the conduct itis desirable for authorities to follow when handling requests for information,and when addressing any complaints which arise from those requests. Part Viof the Code sets out various recommendations in respect of complaintprocedures (internal reviews). Our concerns in respect of internal reviewsconducted by the MPS centre upon two things:
(a) The timescale for internal reviews
(b) The reconsideration of issues at internal review
To elaborate further:
(a) The timescale for internal review~¡
'~.';:
In the response provided to 12 on the 29 January 2007,the MPS explained that 'in all possible circumstances the MPS wil aim torespond to your co~n three months'. The same text. is re~eated inthe refusal sent to ..13 on the 15 January 2008 and in various other
complaints considered within the audit
121CO reference FS50153447 - MPS reference 2006110010906131CO reference FS50188116- MPS reference 2007110007281
Information Commissioner's Office, Wyclíffe House, Water Lane, Wílmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AFt: 01625 545700 f: 01625 524510 e: maíl(gico.gsi.gov.uk www.ico.gov,uk
-7 -
(co/ENF0201053
Information Commissioner's OfficePromoting public access to official information
and ppoteeting YOUI" personal information
In February 2007, the Commissioner,issued good practice guidance in whichhe set out what he considers to be a reasOnable timeframe for the conduct ofinternal reviews (copy enclosed). Within this guidance the Commissionerconcluded that 20 working days was a reasonable timeframe for an internalreview to be conducted. In exceptional cases he recognised that it may bereasonable to take longer but concluded that in no case should the total timetaken exceed 40 working days. In light of this guidance, I would be grateful ifyou could confirm whether the MPS would be willing to amend its procedures(providing it has not already done so) to accord with the Commissioner'sguidance on this issue.
(b) The reconsideration of issues at internal review
Paragraph 39 of the Code recommends that the complaints procedure provide
i a fair and thorough review of handling issues and of decisions taken pursuant
to the Act, including decisions taken about where the balance of publicinterest lies in respect of exempt information'. It goes on to say lIt shouldenable a fresh decision to be taken on a reconsideration of all the factorsrelevant to the issue'.
We are concerned that the MPS may norbe communicating thereconsideration of requests in a manner which demonstrates that a truly freshdecision has been made. For example, in the aforementioned request from."'(pages 5-6 of this letter) the reasons for withholding information at theinternal review were almost identical to those provided in the original refusal.
We recognise that this may, in part, stem from the difficulties arising from theduty to confirm or deny or similar. However we would welcome yourcomments on this matter, with particular reference to the process by whichinternal reviews are undertaken within MPS. In the event that a written policyon internal reviews is in place, we should be grateful to receive a copy.
(4) Next Steps
, recognise that this is a somewhat lengthy letter and to assist you in drawingout the points on which we anticipate a response, I have summarised therelevant actions as follows:
(a) Confirmation of whether the Iform.bfundertaking' approach is still in use,and if so why the MPS considers this to bê'~necessary
(b) Comments on the MPS' approach to refusal notices with particularreference to:
Templates / standard paragraphs used to create refusal notices
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AFt: 01625 545700 f: 01625 524510 e: mail(gico.gsi.gov.uk ww,ico.gov.uk
- 8-
ENF0201053 ~,yInformation Commlssioner.te Office
Promoting public access to official informationand protecting your personal information
Staff members responsibilities in drafting refusals and the type oftraining have they undertaken
The checking procedure for refusal notices and details of thisprocedure
Whether the fact that was handled by Marylebone PoliceStation had any bearing uponthe response, for example would itnormally have been handled centraHywithin the MPS?
(c) Any comments you may have on the difficulties the MPS faces in relationto the duty to confirm or deny the existence of information (section 1 (1) (a)).For example:
Incidences of information being erroneously provided to a requesterand the resulting impact upon the MPS
The approach to neither confirm nor deny cases. How does thisapproach operate and does it reflect advice provided by ACPO orsimilar?
(d) MPS' comments on the application of alternative / additional exemptionsduring the investigation of complaints and the steps the MPS will take tominimise such an occurrence
(e) Whether the MPS is willing to amend its,FOI complaints procedure(providing it has not already done sO)JQ accord with the Commissioner'sguidance on the timescale for internal review
(f) Comments on MPS' approach to internal reviews with particular referenceto the process undertaken
(g) Provision of a copy of the MPS' policy on internal reviews if held
In addition to the above, we would like to reiterate that this is an opportunityfor MPS to detail any improvements already undertaken, in progress orplanned by the authority in respect of request handling.
The work of the Enforcement Team does not impinge directly upon theinvestigation of individual complaints and as such you should expect to hearfrom my colleagues in the Education Police and Justice Complaints Team(Team 2) as normaL.
In closing, we seek to reassure you that our intervention at this stage isintended to be informal and that we very much hope that this will promote aconstructive response and ultimateIY,a'positive relationship between the
, ;.',t
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AFt: 01625 545700 f: 01625 524510 e: mail(§ico.gsi.gov,uk www,ico.gov,uk
ENF0201053 &0/- 9-
Information Commissioner's OfficePromoting public access to official information
and pr-otecting your personal information
Enforcement Team and the MPS. Please feel free to contact me directly if youwould like to discuss any of the matters referenced in this letter.
We look forward to hearing from you within 20 working days. If this timescaleposes a problem please do not hesitate to contact me. Similarly, pleasecontact me if you would like an electronic copy of this letter in order to extractthe points on which we anticipate a response.
Yours sincerely
Joanne Stones (Miss)
FOI Enforcement Officer
Information Commissioner's Office
¡oan ne. stonesßiico. gsi .gov. uk
Direct Dial: 01625 545344
Enclosures
FOI Enforcement StrategyRefusal notice - issued to 21 JanuarY 2007Refusal notice - issued to 09 February 2007Refusal notice - issued to 27 September 2006Freedom of Information Good Practice Guidance No. 5
.';. "~ ,
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe H6use,Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AFt: 01625 545700 f: 01625 524510 e: maìl(gico.gsi.gov.uk www,ico.gov.uk
ENF0201053 ~c;- 10-
Information Commissioner's OfficePromoting public access to official information
and protectÎng your personal information
Annexe 1
Complaints included within Audit
FS50086089 2005020000313 & 0 9 February 2005
FS50088977 2005030000399 -- 18 March 2005
FS50099861 2005040000209 11 April 2005
FS50101864 2005060000030 . 20 May 2005
FS50148975 2006040003660 7 02 June 2005 / 09 August 2005
FS50106800 2007020001775 25 July 2005
Information Commissioner's Offce, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AFt: 01625 545700 f: 01625 524510 e: mail(gico,gsi.gov.uk www,ico.gov.uk
- 11 -
IC~~ENF0201053~~"" /
FS50106985 Unknown . ~Øtl!b)(9ri~i8e~ne..'s OfficePromoting publíc access to officìal information
and -nroteetjnn \Jour narsonal information
FS50129227 2006020001612 .. 07 February 2006
FS50146176 2006060010751 .. 26 April 2006
FS50139215 2006050007128 ~ 24 May 2006
FS50154349 2006090003327 11 September 2006
FS50146678 Unknown 21 September 2006
FS50157859 20070505005294 18 November 2006
FS50153447 2006110010906 - 29 November 2006
FS50169737 200701000228 - 8 January 2007
FS50150414 Unknown ~ 19 January 2007
FS50170141 2007030002810 -. 24 February 2007
FS50186040 2007030004807 - 14 March 2007
FS50168043 2007050006340 .. 17 March 2007
FS50169014 2007110003471 .. 30 March 2007
FS50186880 2007040008229 - 26 April 2007
FS50185687 200705000160227 April 2007
FS50170381 2007050002765 - 1 May 2007
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AFt: 01625 545700 f: 01625 524510 e: mail(fico,gsi,gov,uk www.ico.gov,uk
- 12-
ENF0201053
Information Commissioner's Office
FS50167718 2007050003367 - promotjn1~:wr%Ogifficial ~nformat!onand t rsonal information
FS50170294 2007060003631 ~ 22 May 2007
FS50179851 Unknown - 22 May 2007
FS50172692 2007070009538 .. 16 June 2007
FS50173912 Unknown .. 6 July 2007
FS50174492 2007070004656 .. 16 July 2007
FS50178276 2007070006438 18 July 2007
FS50176308 2007070008043 24 July 2007
FS50190522 2007080005180 14 August 2007
FS50178467 2007080005562 .. 17 August 2007
FS50190668 2007100005239 18 October 2007
FS50186901 Unknown -- 14 November 2007
FS50188116 2007110007281 -- 20 November 2007
FS50199925 2006050008354 .. 07 March 2008
FS50169899 2007060006239 -- Unknown
FS50090852 2006070001652 ..' Various (including 7 September 2005). "j
FS50127256 2008030007589 - Various
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AFt: 01625 545700 f: 01625 524510 e: mail&iico.gsî.gov,uk ww.ico.gov.uk
Page 1 of2
From: Joanne Stonessent: 17 June 2008 09:47
To: David McNeil
Subject: RE: _v Metropolitan Police Service.
Hi Oavid,
I've taken a look at the_case (170141).
It was helpful to receive your update on how the case is prqwessing, as Enforcement's audit of Met caseswas carried out in the first few weeks of May, meaning thatmany of the important developments in thisparticular case (such as the admission that some paperwork had been lost) had yet to be documented.
i'll keep a note of our email exchange and I'd be grateful if you could let me know once the DN is served as I'lladd a copy of the Notice to the Enforcement Case (ENF0201 053). I'd also be grateful if you could let me knowwhether you plan to make reference to the loss of information within the ON or the covering letters.
In terms of progression of the Enforcement case, I wrote to the Met on the 4 June to express our concernsabout the following:
- Explanation of the application of exemptions is limited or generic- Additional exemptions introduced during the course of the section 50 investigations- The timescale for internal reviews- The reconsideration of issues at internal review
Merilyne Oavies called on the 10 June to discuss Enforcement's letter and appeared positive and very willingto engage with the ICO in addressing the matters which concerned us.
Watch List
At present the Met aren't included on the Enforcement Watch List. As with any authority, they have thepotential to be added in the future and their compliance / conformity will be kept under review.
,!
If it would be helpful for you to see any of the corresp.onderiçe I've exchanged with the Met so far give me,ashout."',Thanks again for letting me know about the developments in this case.
Jo
5344
From: David McNeil
sent: 16 June 2008 17:22
To: Joanne Stones
Subject: ~ Metropolitan Police Service.
Dear Joanne.
JP told me to inform you about this case.
Its reference is FS50170141.
The MPS have actually been prett helpful to me,"
But it has lost the primary information and also didn't open its mail for two weeks in April2007.
file:IIC:\temp\(Ref. ENF0201053) .html 01104/2009
Page 2 of2
As it happens as it is a disciplinary hearing we feel that section 40(5) applies since theinformation is pd and unfair to release to the public. This is informed by the fact thosemembers of the public with an access right to the hearing have an alternative regime.
Kind regards
Drm.
file:IIC:\temp\(Ref. ENF0201053) .html 01104/2009
METROPOLITANPOLICE Working together for a safer London
DIRECTORATE OF INFORMATION
SK95AF
001 - Directorate of InformationPublic Access Office20tn Floor, West WingEmpress State BuildingLillie RoadLondonSW61TRTelephone: 0207161 3554Facsimile: 0207161 3503Email:Merilyne. Davies§met. police. ukww.met.police.ukYour ref: ENF0201053Our ref:
10 July 2008
Joanne Stones
Information Commissioner's OfficeWycliffe House,Water Lane,
Wilmslow,Cheshire,
Dear Joanne, 'f,
RE: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA): Audit of Complaints
Thank you for your letter dated 4th June 2008 regarding the recent audit the ICO hasconducted of the Metropolitan Police Service's FolA responses. I would also like to expressmy gratitude for extending the time limit in which i had to respond to your letter. This greatlyassisted me in researching the individual issues you have raised in your letter.
Information for ConsiderationBefore i respond to the particular points raised in your letter i thought it would be helpful foryou to highlight the sheer scale of our operation here together with the volumes of requestswe deal with so that my response is put into context.
Size of the OrganisationThe Metropolitan Police Service covers a population of over seven and a half million, risingby around 40,000 a year. In addition to this, we also receive in the region of 30 million visitorseach year through general tourism and as a result of hosting international events (such asthe Olympic Torch Run).
The Service employs in excess of 50,000 people across London in 32 Borough OperationalCommand Units (BOCUs), supported by specialist Operational Command Units (OCUs) thatprovide pan-London, national and international support, together with significant businessand information technology support.
The figures supplied above give an indication of the size of our policing responsibilities andthe increasing challenges we face with regards to balancing our day-to-day policing functionswith our specialist operations.
Metropolitan Police Service FolA Process and PractitionersDue to the size of the organisation it was felt that a devolved approach to FolA would offer amore effective process. To date, we still maintain this approach but, as I will touch on later inthis letter, this is currently under review.
c........__ ..:: I""Z....__¿:.... I\...L ,.""" ir:.;~ 1\,. h....;. _J: 1"___1..:_",..
The majority of FolA requests are sent to the Public Access Office (PAO) to assess and logonto our case management system. The PAO acknowledges the receipt of the request andforwards it onto the relevant section FolA Practitioner to process. If the request cuts acrossmultiple areas the PAO will either negotiate a responsible business owner or handle therequest centrally.
The PAO are the central hub of legislation knowleôge and experience, which MPS FolAPractitioners and other staff can call upon at any timé during normal office hours to obtainadvice and guidance on all aspects of FolA. This knowledge and experience is alsotranslated into guidance notes and policy, which all staff have access to via our intranet site.
As you and your colleagues will already know, the PAO also handles all FolA Reviews andAppeals for the organisation and manages the MPS Publication Scheme.
To illustrate the size of the operation currently in place to handle FolA requests, I have givenan overview of how many staff are involved in the process below:
· Public Access Office (PAO)
The PAO FolA Department consists of the following:· 1 FolA Officer (SEO)
· 1 FolA Senior Information Access Manager (HEO)
· 1 FolA Policy Support and Review Officer (EO)
· 1 FolA Policy Support Team Line Manager (EO)
· 3 FolA Policy Support Team Advisors (AO)
· 1 Publication Scheme Web Manager (EO)
· 1 Publication Scheme Information Manager (AO)
· Borough Operational Command Units (BOCUs~: and Operational Command Units (OCUs)Each OCU and BOCU have at least one Information Manager (EO) in post to handle all FolArequests for their area in addition to handling other information management duties. Thereare approximately 90 IMs across the organisation with some IMs located within two centralFolA units based in the Serious Crime Directorate and the Directorate of ProfessionalStandards.
Each OCU and BOCU also has at least one Decision Maker (usually the rank of DetectiveInspector and above) who has the overall responsibility of approving the responses proposedby the IMs. If a request is considered to be of high risk to the organisation (such asoperational information) then the request is usually approved at ACPO Officer leveL.
Volume of RequestsWith any organisation of this size and public interest it is not surprising that we receive alarge volume of FolA requests. However, it is worth considering that since the FolA wasenacted in 2005, requests received by the MPS have grown by 28% from 2411 to 3073requests received annually. Since 2005 (up until end of June 2008) the MPS have received9541 requests for information, which makes us by far the largest receiver of requests for thePolice Service nationally. Our growth is set to continue with the total number of requestsreceived so far this year showing an increase of 2% from this time last year.
% Responses SentIt is also worth noting the percentage of the categories of responses sent by the organisationsince 2005. The most common response sent by the organisation is S40 (Personal Data)refusals (26%) where applicants confuse the FolA with the Data Protection Act (DPA) andrequest their own personal data under the wrong legislation.
The second largest category of responses is full disclosures at 25%. The remaining 40% ofresponses are divided between partial disclosures (at 10%), fully exempted responses (9%),no information held (8%), refusals on the bases that information is already publicly available(7%) and requests withdrawn (6%). In short, applicants have a 16% higher chance of 2
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA): Audit of Complaints
ICO Ref: ENF 0201053
receiving the requested information in full from the MPS than to have their request rejected,which I believe is a very positive beginning for the organisation in terms of embracing theAct.
Reviews and AppealsSince January 2008 we have received 40 requests for Reviews and 8 Appeals. If weconsider the fact that we have received 1562 requests for information since January 2008,then the total percentage of Reviews we have received out of the total number of requestsequates to 2.6%. This same comparison can al,so be applied to Appeals, which equates to0.5%. 'I'm sure that you will agree that the above figures help to illustrate that the percentage rate ofFolA responses leading to Reviews and Appeals is actually very low. However, it would beinteresting to know whether this is the same for other public sectors, so that we can gaugeour performance in the context of other Public Authorities.
Finally, as we discussed via telephone in June, we are currently reviewing our processeswith the aim of seeking further improvements and identifying the best way forward for theorganisation in terms of compliance with the legislation. Considerations are being made as towhether the devolved model is really the best approach for us or whether we should belooking at centralising our processing of requests. In light of this i would welcome any viewsthe ICO may have on this given your knowledge and experience of how FolA is handled byother PAs to helps us in our considerations.
Letter Response(2)With regards to paragraph two of page two of your letter I'm pleased that you and yourcolleagues have noted our improvements in the past year. A great deal of effort has beenploughed into appropriately resourcing the PAQ with substantive FolA practitioners whoeither have experience of the legislation and I or \Nhò have undergone and successfullycompleted the ISEB training in FolA (which is funded by the Directorate of Information).Equally, the awareness and support of the FolA has increased across the MPS, which is aresult of the PAO playing a proactive role in supporting the organisation and by raisingawareness of the legislation with all grades of staff.
As the Head of PAO I recognise that there are still improvements to be made within the PAOand I can assure the ICO there are plans afoot to tackle them individually whilst we try tohandle the ever increasing volume and complexity of requests received by the organisation.
(3)(3.1) (a)With regards to our application of Section 17 and the ICO's concerns that we apply thisexemption in a generic fashion I would, to a degree, agree with this view with regards to ourearlier cases and, in some incidences, our more recent casework.
The reasons for this are four fold; with a devolved model it is very difficult to maintain astandard of knowledge and experience of the legislation. For example: When a BOCU FolApractitioner leaves their post, the area affected isalmost restarting from scratch whentraining a new member of staff. It is very unlik~iy th~t they will be fortunate enough to employan experienced practitioner at the grade offerëd or indeed have an available resource withFolA experience to cover the role. This means sl,.Gh mistakes are more likely to occur as, attime of writing this letter, there are no Q&A processes in place to address these beforedisclosure, except, of course, those areas which have Q&A measures built into theirprocesses locally.
The MPS Senior Management Team is currently reviewing the lack of an official Q&Aprocess with a view to adding this important process into our procedures. This change is of
3
Freedom of Infonmation Act 2000 (FoIA): Audit of Complaints
ICO Ref: ENF 0201053
course highly dependant upon an increase in resources but we do recognise that theoverriding factor is that we comply with our legislative responsibilities.
The second factor for the reasons why our S 17 refusals may appear to be applied genericallyis that some of the information requested is National Security information. As I'm sure youcan appreciate, when considering requests such as these (in some cases) the veryconfirmation that the information exists is disclosure in itself and poses some considerabledegree of harm. We need to be careful, therefore, that when refusing information of thisnature that in our efforts to give an explanation as to what exemptions apply to theinformation (that mayor may not exist) we do not inadvertently disclose the requestedinformation.
\:This said, it is true that even with some Natioriàl Security related cases (and other FolArequests) completed early into the enactment of ttë FolA the exemptions applied to S17refusals were too generic. However, I believe this" is rnore to do the fact that our knowledgeof the legislation was not as it is now and lack of understanding of how PIT and Harm testsshould be applied rather than whether the information is actually considered on its ownmerits. In fact, it may be reassuring to note that we take a strong view that when consideringcases we wil always consider the information first before making any decisions on applying a17(4) exemption. This has been a matter of debate with other PAs but the MPS and ACPOhave, and wil, continue to maintain this position.
Thirdly, as I'm sure you are fully aware, the Police Service has traditionally been operatingon a need to know rather than a need to share basis. This is a cultural service issue, whichhas been, at times, a challenge to overcome. We are taking great steps to overcome thisarchaic attitude via various communication channels, which include policies, guidance notes,posters, intranet articles, one-to-one guidance sessions and feedback. In short, I'm confidentthat we are making huge improvements in this area but I do also recognise there is stillprogression to be made and we will continue to work hard in combating this issue.
Finally (within this section), with regards to generic National Security responses these issueswere compounded by the fact that up until recently the PAO were not granted access to thisinformation to conduct Reviews or Appeals, which may have addressed the issues you haveraised earlier. However, I am pleased to repQrt:that negotiations have taken place with theinformation owners and that increased access toJhís information has been granted. Equally,a new Special Operations Single Point of Contact has now been drafted in and we have hadsome preliminary discussions on further improving process within that area with a view totaking things forward, which is very encouraging.
With regards to the case of 1, I believe that the answer to the question relatingto the use of 'form of undertaking' is that whilst this was a legitimate and recognised methodof providing information to bona fide historians and academics in the pre-Freedom ofInformation era, this is not a process that we would now apply. In thè ca~e of._ this resulted from the original request for access from_whereby her original request was refused under FOI. However, following a letter from herSolicitors, S015 decided that privileged access was an appropriate way of dealing with therequest whilst attempting to protect publication of the sensitive information. When thesubsequent request was received from it was felt that there was little choicebut to offer the same facility to him.
Following the above thread (and so that we can tie-up all loose ends with this particularcase), are you able to offer us an update ont~e response to our letter dated the 19th June2007? "
jt",,)
1 ICO reference FS501 06800 - MPS reference 20070200017754
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA): Audit of Complaints
ICO Ref: ENF 0201053
To address your comments regarding the case of~ I fully agree that it is notcorrect to apply S30 and S31 to the same piece of information and I can assure you that allMPS practitioners should know this. Nevertheless, to offer some reassurance on this issue, iwil forward a reminder note to our practitioners to cover this particular aspect.
--.. "~i'The case o~ is I'm afraid a case,yvhich has slipped through the net and has beendealt with completely inappropriately. This request-has not passed through the usualprocesses, which is why I believe this request has been handled in this manner. In light ofthis, i will issue an instruction note to the organisation, which will remind staff how requestsmust be handled by the organisation.
To answer your question as to whether requests are handled centrally, the requests arelogged centrally by my Department and allocated to the appropriate Information Manager,which could be the IM at the City of Westminster. It is apparent that in the case ofthis was not done and, as such, a separate guidance note will be issued to the respondingofficer and his line manager.
With regards to your three separate questions on page 4 i will answer them as follows:1. Sections of the Act along with ACPO guidance is available to practitioners but we
do instruct staff not to copy and paste what is written as they should be used asguidance only as requests must be dealt on a case-by-case basis.
Letter templates are also available to staff but these are only guidance on thestructure of responses and do not include exemption specific information, as,again, all requests should be dealt~ithon a case-by-case basis.
,or.',;
2. As stated on pages 1 and 2, it isther!3§ponsibility of both the IM and the DM todraft and approve the final responses-given to requesters.
ACPO Decision Maker Training is offered to both grades and the individual unitsare encouraged to offer ISEB training if it is requested by their local practitioner.
3. Please refer to response to question (3.1) (a). Dip sampling is conducted by myDepartment but only after the request has been sent due to the sheer volume ofrequests received and the resources currently in place.
The Duty to Confirm or DenyThe vast majority of the information we collect, process and retain is of a sensitive natureand a large proportion of this is Sensitive Personal Information (as defined in Section 2 of the
2 iea reference FS50170294 - MPS reference 2007060003631
3 iea reference FS501 01864 - MPS reference 2005060.00030
41eO reference FS50150414 - MPS reference Not'Applied
¡~~j¡
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA): Audit of Complaints
ICO Ref: ENF 0201053
5
Data Protection Act), therefore, we do use NGND and I would assume more so than mostother Public Authorities because of the type of infqpmation we process.
I'm sure our use of NCND has increased inline with our improved understanding of thelegislation together with the increased receipt of requests, which require access to personaldata both by data subjects and third parties.
Equally, due to a number of national security and specialist operations (etc) that have beenconducted by the MPS the proportion of NCND responses would naturally be higher giventhat there would be some considerable harm caused if the very confirmation that theinformation existed were to be disclosed.
With regards to your three separate questions on page 4 and 5 I will answer them as follows:1. i am not aware of any incidences of information being erroneously provided to a
requester by providing too much detail within a refusaL. To ascertain whether ornot there have been any incidences would require me to research in the excess of9000 requests to be able to fully answer this question.
2. The MPS follows the NCND guidance given by ACPO.
With regards to the case 0~5, tharequesterwas requesting copies of SpecialBranch (SB) files that we mayor may not hold on~phn Lennon. This is a matter ofconsistency of approach with regards to SB files ¡¡ndconfirming whether or not we holdinformation.
For example:A terrorist group would like to establish whether or not the MPS holds information ontheir members to ascertain whether their activities are under surveilance. They eachin turn request confirmation and access to any information held on their group by SB.The MPS confirms that we do not hold information on one member but we issue aNCND response regarding the other members. The fact that we confirmed that we donot hold information on one member and issued an NCND response regarding theother members would clearly indicate to this group that we hold information on them,which would impinge on any operations taking place.
Equally, if we confirm that we do not hold information on John Lennon but issue anNCND response regarding a terrorist subject then it would be obvious to the widerworld (and most importantly the terrorist in question) that we hold information on theterrorist.
i appreciate that the above are rather crude examples but i do believe this illustrates why wemaintain a consistent approach to SB and National Security related files.
With regards to the case of 6, whilst I;~an understand that_was subjectto considerable media interest at the time this request was made i do support the withholdingof the requested information and the fact we issued an NCND to this regard.
You mayor may not know that the requested information was sensitive personal informationregarding ~and that the requester required information regarding _previous arrest, which was not in the public domain. i hope you will agree that we should shyaway from contributing to a "trial by media" and allow a fair judicial process to take place,which, I believe, is in the Public's interest. As such, I believe it was appropriate for the MPSto issue an NCND for this particular case. Of course, i would welcome the ICO's views onthis.
5 ICO reference FS50154349 - MPS reference 20060900033276 ICO reference FS50169737 - MPS reference 2007010002228
6
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA): Audit of Complaints
ICO Ref: ENF 0201053
(3.1 )(b)With regards to the ICO's concerns over the MPS adding additional exemptions during thecourse of S50 investigations, may I request firial clarification on this very issue from the ICO?The reason I ask this is that I personally have attended two conferences (FoIA Live and theACPO Conference) recently in which the ICOrepresentative's were present and on a handfulof occasions conflicting advice was unfortunately given on this issue. This confusion isshared amongst my ACPO colleagues, so i would be very grateful if you could provide mewith your final guidance on this so that i may share this with my colleagues nationally.
I would like to highlight here that the confusion around S50 is also evident in your letter aswelL. I refer you to paragraph 5 on page 5 of your letter and paragraph 2 on page 7 of yourletter. On page 5 you state the following:
"... the fact that an exemption is introduced after the initial refusal does not in itselfdisentitle an authority from replying upon it. However, the Commissioner wouldinevitably find that the authority had breached the requirements of Section 17 byfailing to inform the applicant of the exemption it sought to rely on within thetimescale... JJ
On page 7 you state:"...A fair and thorough review of handling issues and of decisions taken pursuant tothe Act including decisions taken about where the balance of public interest lies inrespect of exempt information...should enable a fresh decision to be taken onreconsideration of all he factors relevant to the issue... JJ
r
1
,
Before i can comment further on this issue or. ir;deed, commit to any organisational changeswith respect to Reviews and Appeals may i ask that clarify the ICO's final guidance on howPAs should be conducting Reviews and Appeals first?
Consideration of Current Guidance and Case Law Against Old CasesWhilst this forum is open i would like to raise a concern of my own if i may. It has beenhighlighted to be that on a number of occasions the ICO has considered both FolA and DPAcases on current guidance and case law when considering cases which pre-dates thisthinking / understanding. I have attached an example with the relevant section highlighted foryour reference ~ \
I do understand that the ICO are under considerable pressure to deal with a large backlog ofcases with very limited resources and it is because of the very limited resources that the ICOare covering cases, which are over a year old. However, may I ask the ICO to consideradopting a more fairer approach to his assessment of cases by considering what guidance /case law was available to practitioners at the time of completing requests. It is verydemoralising to be challenged on facts, which were not available to us at this time. This isespecially true of when the ICO issues a negative assessment against the PA and this fact iscommunicated to the requester, which unjustly paints a rather negative picture of the PA. iwould welcome the ICO's views on this and any guidance that can provide to assist us onthis matter.jrThank you for bringing these matters to my attention. We are making improvements and,wherever possible, we will take on your helpful advice. My practitioners, colleagues and i arecommitted to working in partnership with you and your colleagues for the benefit of the publicand the Metropolitan Police Service and, if at all possible, welcome the opportunity toconduct a visit to your Offices with an aim to taking the issues you have raised forward.
71CO reference FS50129227 - MPS reference 2006070001031
7
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA): Audit of Complaints
ICO Ref: ENF 0201053
If you would like to discuss the issues you have raised with me direct please do not hesitatein contacting me on the details provided on the front of this letter.
Yours sincerely,
Miss Merilyne DaviesHead of Public Access Office
8
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA): Audit of Complaints
ICO Ref: ENF 0201053
ENF0201053 (cC;Information Commissioner's Office
Promoting public access to official informationand pr"oteeting your personal information
Merilyne DaviesHead of the Public Access OfficeMetropolitan Police ServiceDirectorate of Information20th Floor, West WingEmpress State BuildingLille RoadLondonSW61TR
Dear
;;;;,;')
** July 2008
Our Case Reference Number: ENF020105.3î!¡
ji'.:ì¡it,
The informatIW~IRr~~i~Wd in respect of the scale of the MPS' operation is very
helpful, and pro\¡i~~~)some useful context to the challenges the authorityfaces. In particular: the sheer number of staff employed (understood to be inexcess of 50,000), any of whom could receive a request for information,obviously presents some difficulties in ensuring that every request is handledconsistently.
FolA Processes and Practitioners.
Given the scale of the organisation and the diversity of the operations itcarries out; we can appreciate why a devolved approach to FolA has beenadopted. ,\.
,I :,1
ENF0201053 (er;-2-
Information CommiBslanerJs OfficePromoting public access to official information
and protecting your personal information
However, we are pleased to learn that this approach is under review as in ourexperience; authorities in which all (or at least a significant portion of)requests are dealt with centrally will be better placed to achieve improvementsin FolA compliance.
Volume of requests
Thank you for providing information on the,riumber of re~¡y.ests received bythe MPS. As you have pointed out, 9541 (tòtal from Jcim~~ry 2005 - June2008) requests is a significant number and it is pos~i~rI~;that the rising profileof information rights will increase this figure furth~m¡l.iti~Wff?' MPS' own figuresalready demonstrate that the number of requests¡¡ITeceiveg!"iti; 2008 (to date) is2% above comparable figures from 2007.nn¡,
,l!,i'l:i:¡'$/')
Against this backdrop, we would be int~~~Mi~d to lea,rn of the ~NP~hKiews on
whether future additional resource is likel~!~~.be r;i:~~ired in ordertolensurethat the authority continues to meet its FoIÄ¡w:IH!ig~~¡;åns.
..\?,-",¡-,yy.;":,;,,,
r r ..~ "
In light of the changes alreadyt~I~~Mglm¡!~~e, pe'm~~~thiS is something that wecan discuss in six months time, 6~¡~e 'tli¡~m~~lendar)¡N'~eir end figures on
request numbers are a~a,ilable. tllh.lli.lil¡llilk.'1:,;.,:_, ';j""',-8, _'-,-,¡-" ¡,H,;:;,:,:,!"., "".,.,';,~, :,l,i,!,~;,;:t"/;i'nt~1i:t;tJ%\':(;"'; ",' ; '". .
% Responses SentmW'
We are interest~W~~"I!,arnJn~;~lIji(~,ot!m~~als cite section 40 of the Act, onaccount or;tP~appj¡d~,ri;t~~plfÛSi~~lmffi~ifiiglìtsunder section 7 (1) of the DataProtecti,~~i~titn1¡~~8 wìt~rltRose providêCl!bysection 1 (1) of FolA. Given that
the~.~¡shNebsite¡i~H~roViij~~;very clear details on how requests for anapPliR~:~ts own pers~mftl dát~mpOUld be rt'ade, we do not feel that the number
of miš~l~¡ged personall~¡~ta reqlÍests reflects a lack of promotion of subject
accessri~hls on the auttl;ority's behalf.'slll!lh,,¡ Aimi
We would likè¡t~¡Ir~~Hm~:l some further clarification on the breakdown of
figures providedi¡;~i¡~räer to ensure that we have properly understood theinformation provided so far. We ask as the percentage of response typesappear to breakdown as demonstrated below, which leaves 9% of responsetypes unaccounted for:
26% - s40 applied as the request is for the applicants own personal data
25% - Information provided in full
10% - Partial disclosures
9% - Exempted in full
- 3-
~o/ENF0201053
8% - information not held
7% - information already publicly available
Information Commissioner's OfficePromoting public access to officíal information
and pr-oteeting your personal information
6% Withdrawn
Total- 91%
Reviews and Appeals
As matters intrinsic to the section 50 complaints we receive form theCommissioner's basis for deciding whether to pursue en~~rcement action, wedo not ordinarily consider their volume as a percentage¡,~f:;:the total number ofrequests received by an authority. ¡(OW
We do however recognise that the informatio~;tn~I~)p~IU~~iprovided oninternal reviews is encouraging as it eugge~t~!~inat the majdrit~;pf requestersare satisfied with the initial response receim~~~;;¡llli'!'
i);l ~ I i:¡l,~' g Y i ", J .~, '\'. ,'\ 1; :¡it ~,~ * :~;,:
In terms of gauging the MPS' performarHi~li;r thi~;Hr~¡!ect against otll'erauthorities, we do not routinely collect inforôi~li~~liS¥this type, although wewill invariably be provided with,~w;i¡;~indicativel~j~'ures as part of our
monitoring activities. The most~~tn~ineR!~nsivein~~Jniation on the number ofinternal reviews / section 50 corrp¡l~ints¡s!~Rni,itted!I~l!~elation to thepercentage of request~.rT~eived is¡¡~rodu9~~H~'~OmTM")ijiìistry of Justice as partof their quarterly an~l~n~iij~hreports¡ij~¡p~itwHhihl¡¡~entral government. Thereport for 2007 car¡H~Efaccê~~ed on 111i~!åt:
HfntfPJlt f i: A ;~ ',0 ' . ~¡ t, J 1: t ' R ? ,~ J \:http://ww. justicëHgø,v. uk/dodslfoi-reportiB007 -final-web. pdf
im i P '" " .; i ¡Ill i l; ¡¡i!lIIIH; H ¡ il IlUlIlllll1 ¡¡'cl ¡ i iAlthou~h¡~~e!;Il~~ij,rtiTeij~'~highlightéä¡in the report are not directly
comg~nsö'e to tllël~fS¡HI~~rms of size, scope, or the nature of theirrespijm~ibilities, we;ti~~ie rè~n~~;uced some examples (focusing on those withhigher¡¡ijIT~;uest numbe'r~t of tH~inumber of internal reviews / section 50complairi~S1¡eubmitted iniinelation to the total number of requests overleaf. We,,,: i" ';,,! ' ihope these;~i;11 be helgnw¡t to the MPS.;".
(continued o~~~IW~DlI!II!i ,'1\
ENF0201053 ~o/-4 -
Information CommlssionerJa OfficePromoting public access to official information
and pf'otecting your personal information
NB: Figures in brackets express a percentage of the number of requestsreceived.
Cabinet Office 641
Department for 1,878Transport
Department forWork andPensions
1,259 26 (2%)
Department ofHealth
18 (1%)
39 (3%) 10(1%)
16 (~ 1 %) 0(0%)
As we have touched upon earlier, we are pleased to learn that the internalreview process is subject to review. Many of the authorities we have workedwith, particularly those who have had limited formalised FolA processes priorto our intervention, have chosen to adopt a wholly centralised approach.
Whilst this works well for many public bodies, the sheer size of the operationwould undoubtedly present a challenge to implementing such a system at theMPS, unless significant additional resource was allocated to the PublicAccess Office for this purpose. In light of this, we would suggest that the MPSconsiders centralising as much of the request handling as possible, but
ENF0201053 &0/- 5-
Information Commissionerss OfficePromoting public access to official information
and protecting your personal information
that primarily, it seeks to build upon the existing modeL. In this context werefer to the exsiting model as retaining a cèntral core of FolA practitioners tolead on request and review handling, whilst drawing upon support fromrelevant staff in the Borough Operational Command Units and the OperationalCommand Units.
In our experience, the key to making such a model work lies in the quality oftraining afforded to staff and to the creation of clear procedures.
- Training of staff
Dealing with each of these points in turn:
¿/cn,'
We are encouraged by the extent to which the MPS has resourced FolAwithin the organisation. We are also encouraged by the authority'scommitment tackle any individual problyms:which may arise.
1 In the event that such a procedure is already in place, we would be grateful for a copy. If
not, we would be pleased to work with the MPS to develop one as appropriate.
ENF0201053 t=~- 6-
'nformation CommlselonerJe OfficePromoting public access to official information
and protecting your personal information
(3)(3.1) (a)
We recognise that the volume of requests received by the MPS makes itdifficult to check each of them individUq,lly b'efore they are issued (with theexception of those taken from the dip sampling). However, in light of the MPS'comments on refusal notices issued by BOCU offcers who have yet to gainsufficient experience in FoIA, if capacity allows we would like to suggest thatdraft responses from these officers are referred to the PAP for commentbefore they are issued. .If such an approach is not already in place, perh~~~I'~ld~H!d be considered forinclusion as an escalation point (see previous pa~âgraphialjJhis matter).
Moving on to the application ofl~ff~ijl~tigns, w~¡m~~J\d always expect anauthority to consider the substanQ~!;of t~~im~~rmati~"i~~quested beforeapplying an exemption,;;b"u,t experiém~e t~\L~I~ijl~~~~th¡i~his not alwayshappening, as the r~ffm~t!W¡~ff!~tice re*~rnrnendåHôij¡issued to the Departmentof Health demon~m~1e~. It i~l~merefore¡IK~ássuring tó note that, with theexception of Natiff~H:l1 Securimi¡cases,'i~niMPS ensures that the actualinformation requê~t~~ is c~m~i~~~~gbefQrff;apPIYing a section 17 (4)
exemPtio~)r:l~are';;~,.~! .tøötrrâ~~ijlff~¡tiJ~ MPS' commitment to challengethe 'ne~~lt~ll~Ö~ì(;!~ulf ¡¡"~land we recö~nise that this is something that will
notb,~i¡~ccompìish~~,o lihi~rt. If there is anything the Good Practice arm ofthej~~&d Practice åi~~liEnfóli~~rnent Team can do to assist the MPS in thischalleihg~, we would b~¡lpleas'etli to offer our support.
We havebl~~;T;;!nterest~~lto learn that the PAO does not always have accessto information¡~gi~:rtf¡~l~y the National Security exemption in order to conductreviews or appeåjl~'Htblearly, this would have a detrimental impact upon theMPS' capacity to ¿årry out reviews and appeals effectively, and wouldfrustrate the authority's ability to demonstrate conformity with the provisions ofthe section 45 Code of Practice. Whilst we are encouraged by the recentincrease in the PAO's abilty to access to this information, we remainconcerned that decisions may be taken without full access to thecorresponding information. As we understand that this will be an area of greatsensitivity, we wish to discuss this with the MPS in more detail and would liketo accept your kind offer to meet in person so we are able to consider this,and other issues, further. ;., '
I
ENF0201053 (crY-7 -
InformatlDn Commlssionerss OfficePromoting public access to official information
and protecting your personal inforniation
Thank you for confirming that the 'form of undertaking' approach is no longerin use. Thank you also for your clarification on why this approach wasundertaken in the case.
d ii ¡1i11 ¡!í!lí' lll
CHh¡~ t tiji.;, ,,~g:t:t 'it
'H-f
Thank you for YÓj~~lffRmm~Of~¡:;~9:tj~~ r~~~~nse issued torecogn is~t,nm;dq ue'S~i'~9.; ;~a~:jåiiSW~iK¡!~t~,lø¡req uests can present somechalle~,~i~~\i¡å~¡t"¡~~ dd;QW~necessarilyiseek recorded information and oftenatteI)1~t!~Ô elicit tHij~i~hts'¡ah~opinions. Výe.are however pleased to see thatthe¡tV¡";? recognisei9¡t~~t thé¡i~~~mptions quoted in tHis case should havebee~'jëHfpi~nded upon'.lmhljiii,
;im
We
pHi
,¡: l¡:~ i ~ f j
Thank you for explaining the reasons why request was nothandled appropriately. We are pleased to note that a reminder will be issuedto staff which will advise how requests must be handled by the organisation.
Turning to your answers to the separate questions (1-4):
1. We are grateful for tHe clarificaHon on the issue of letter templates:1~
~::0201053 ..' ko/2, In respect of the training options offered to IM and OM's (L~CaIìL
ACPO Decision Maker Training and ISEB trainingo~~:WQr.i'ifirw~liet::ì::and protecting your personal information
there is scope to make this compulsory? Again, this is something wewould be happy to discuss in person so we are able to fully understandthe implications of such an approach
3. We are encouraged to learn that dip sampling is c;~~ducted by the PAOand would be interested to learn what percenta)~;~ipf correspondence isroutinely checked in this way, andofthose t~ñ¡w¡ercentage ofresponses which the PAO con~iclersto be;!m'~sat~s¡~~ctory or similar. Asabove, we could discuss this in person if itiiWould~ei;r;ore appropriate
The Duty to Confirm or Deny:n:f
¡/;P:"HU!
!;¡:;
":f i A;' ~ t t 9 g~, Ji n r
;tgtl'LUU
':,"nt
rf\::î ~ ~'i ;;/:::(
;; tfWt)
"'I am writing t6l~~W1Wl3~cerning the operation of the Wilson Doctrine, as set
out by the Prime fINnister, Harold Wilson, in response to a question from aformer MP for Lewes, Sir Tufton Beamish, on 17 November 1966. Can youplease inform me whether, since that date, there has been a change of policywhich has occurred but has not yet been reporled to the House of Commons,and especially if he wil state how many MPs have been subjected totelephone tapping or other intrusive surveilance since that date. I am askingfor a number to be given, along with the year of intercept, not for the names ofthe MPs in question."
The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requestedinformation by virtue of s24 (2). Both the Commissioner and the Tribunalupheld this approach with the Tribunal stating that, "The use of a neither
~::0201053 Æco/confirm nor deny response on matters of national security can o~~cure itsPur;pose if it is applied consistently." (para 48). Information Commlasloner's OfficePromoting public access to official Information
and p~oteeting your per-Gonal information
Essentially the key point was that knowing that any number of MPs or that noMPs were under surveillance would be of significant interest (and would orwould be likely to endanger national security).
Clearly each case must be considered on its own merits, and whilst we arekeen to assist the MPS in approaching such requests we are alsokeen to discourage over reliance on the removal of to confirm or denyin cases where it is not appropriate to do so.
Thank you for your comments of the~~~se, which iadded to the relevant case files (as witij!~~ë other in~~rmationcases). As the case is yet to be investiga~~~ìproP,nn,llwe do not
prematurely indicate whether or not the M~~l'rm~i~orrect to neither confirmnor deny whether the informati~m!~~s held. H0rræ,~er, we recognise that itwould be helpful to explain why~~!s¡n~f:~¡~al was¡iarrl~ded as in example in our
last letter to you. Essentially, thist~~s 'åm¡¡i¡I¡I¡~~lnatidri¡w~¡~ refusal which caused
us concern as it invokednumerous¡~)(empt¡gmSj¡\%ith vefy little explanation asto why they applied.d mmm ;\ ¡!l¡ ,¡Il IWiiqmp
,¡!!IlW"'íiUl¡"m¡r(3.1) (b) ."" lW "p,i¡I;lllhk dlil¡iimnHF¡ ¡lliilL
Our previ?~¡s"lntte(tQi~,~;~!lHP'S\'rna~i~mfl1n'rence to the decision of the
Inform~ti~~¡TJjii~~m,~1 ii1i~~t:brick v Ndttngham City CounciF. This referencewasf.ilj~ljiläed in dr~mrtoé~R!~in that the fact that an exemption is introducedafterl~~n initial refuŠall!~toe~n¡~il!~ itself disentitle an authority from relyingupon'i~.¡:~;?wever, we~n~t on1tø explain that the Commissioner wouldinevitably¡f:im¡? that the ~~thority had breached the requirements of section 17by failing tô¡lOñ?,rm th~i¡fl~plicant of the exemption it sought to rely on withinthe appropriåt~itirna~Qal~.
'a fair and thorough review of handling issues and of decisions taken pursuantto the Act, including decisions taken about where the balance of publicinterest lies in respect of exempt information. It should enable a fresh decisionto be taken on a reconsideration of all the factors relevant to the issue'.
2 Available at
http://www. informationtribu nal. gov. uklDocuments/decisions/Dr%20 P%2 0 Bowbrick%20v%201nformation %20Commissioner%20and%20 Nottingham%20City%20Cou ncil%20(28 %20September%202007)v7307. pdf
- 10-
(crYENF0201053
This would suggest that an authority is correct, and ind~§,~r~id&o1i1lmgl'Ç~~:;:r~:i::and protecting your personal information
introduce additional or alternative exemptions at the review stage whereappropriate.
Nevertheless, the Commissioner would find the authority in breach of section17 (1) if an additional exemption was introduced at this stage (or during theCommissioner's investigation). This is because section 1 (1) requires that:
A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to anyextent relying on a claim that any provision of Part 11 relating to the duty toconfirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information isexempt information must, within the tim\~ for complying with section 1(1),give the applicant a notice which- .
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwisE! be apparent) why the exemption applies.
We appreciate that this .i.s a rath~¡I~~~~¡'I~;;~~w'I¡ind there wil becircumstances under;~~!i;~~!ti~e Cortrn.i~;~i~rierfiill~!~i¡;ri authority in breach ofsection 17 (1), de~p'~~¡the¡fafftthat tn~;~¡were correct to introduce anexemption at thmi~~ternal revÌmyv stagEjÌ~~r during the investigation). This is
because the autli~nirX will ~~~:~,8?rnmitte~\~n irrevocable procedural breach ofthe Act. In rn,uch tI¡~¡~~;rn~!w~~jl~t'll!~~~~?~i~y could not retrospectively absolvea breaCnd~f¡s:~~tiQn f~itmljtiime fot6o~¡Øliance).
,'" ." J. ~ 'to" ;, .~ t n ; i !! t t: ",1 R~ 1% ti t i;,)'
Consideration of Current Guidance and,Case Law Against Old Cases."f,~We are grateful to you for taking this oppòrtunity to raise the MPS' concernson the application of current case law and guidance when consideringrelatively early requests. Regrettably, this is due in part to the backlog of FOIcases. As cases await allocation, case law and in particular, Tribunal casesprogress, resulting in new lines to take on the interpretation of the Act. It is
~~~:201053 £crYunfortunate that this can have the effect of considering an authoL-. .. Int¡rrnion Co~~e.BloneriB Officeresponse in the context of case law which was not avaij¡:ble,¡l9uilhlem,.lol,M;ial information
and protecting your personal information
time the request was made and we very mùch regret that this has had ademoralising effect upon practitioners. at the MPS. Where possible, we do tryto reflect the status of the Commissioner'slguidance at the time of the requestand you may wish to view the Decision Notice issued in case FS50147679 foran example of this:
http://ww. ico.gov. uk/upload/documents/decisionnotice:~A~008/fs 5014 7679.pdf u!nH,';'lH1'
Page 6 of this Decision Notice explains that W~!I~IW~I~~h~fi!ty did notconduct an internal review within the timefram~istipulated~~nneCommissioner in 'Good Practice Guidan~ff!Vt't;'5' published il1!If~Rruary 2007,that the delay occurred before the publiff~~i6n of this;i~uidance dlilmlr matter.
Meeting
We would be pleased to inViten~WJ~!¡ri!Í~d ;:~~~lieagues to our offces to
discuss the issues raised in our d~r.cespø;mflrrin'Ge tÖ¡¡~~t,e. Alternatively, we
would be pleased to vi~ii.~~e MPS~!~"ice~,i~a~¡~MI;~rly!if'his could becombined with any n;~~~l;ijg~¡l exch~¡I¡l9~1¡~f¡Jnfoh~Iijtjon which would progresscurrent cases. ¡,.q,p' 'i"'" 'l,.,',.,.,i.".,',i,l",Pp "'HfiHn qlU:¡,;"
,;;x
We would like t~¡U¡~;~~est tn~1¡t~;~J()uoJij~'::,ICo staff members attend such ameeting: ' ' 'id' ,
JOh~n,W~lt~lmrn!l¡Ê¿\I\tp,rceme~;¡¡~:nagerJo S¡'~n¡es - FOI EnTqntemè~~I~fficer "Jo Pê(j~¡er - Team Leijeißr, Edrtlcation Police and Justice
';;;i:;'f¡ i'k";:;
If the me~ll~~iii!~ to be.Ti~ld here in Wilmslow, we wil also endeavour tointroduce to tf!~ifferu~¡I~;Înts officers handling MPS cases and to other memberof the FOI Enforo~~øht and Good Practice Team as appropriate.
:Jëdd
We would be grateful if you could indicate your preferences for the locationand probable date of the meeting. We will then ensure that the necessaryarrangements are made. We would also be grateful if the MPS could provideclarification on the breakdown of % of responses, as requested in page two ofthis letter (in advance of the meeting).
In closing, we would like to reiterate ourthahks for the positive way the MPShas responded to our concerns so fan,.Wevery much look forward to workingwith you and your colleagues to achieve a,'positive outcome.
,
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
- 12-
ENF0201053 €=eYYours sincerely Information Commissioner's Office
Promoting public access to official informationand prootecting your personal information
Jo Stones
(FOI) Enforcement Officer
Good Practice and Enforcement
