Authorisation for baton gunners/AEP

Dear Mr Sands

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012020000836
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 06/02/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

  " 1. How many times has the head of Central Operations received
 requests to authorise baton gunners / Kestrel teams to be on standby in
each of the last five years?

  2. How many times has the head of Central Operations refused
authorisation?  

 3. Please list the operations/events where authorisation was granted, as
in question 1, if this is possible within the costs  limit for FoI
requests."

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party.  In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this
deadline.  If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact FOIA Team on telephone number 02071613640 quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

P Deja
Policy and Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Dear Mr. Sands
 
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012020000836

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 06/02/2012. I note you seek
access to the following information:

1. How many times has the head of Central Operations received requests to
authorise baton gunners / Kestrel teams to be on standby in each of the
last five years?

2. How many times has the head of Central Operations refused
authorisation?

3. Please list the operations/events where authorisation was granted, as
in question 1, if this is possible within the costs limit for FoI
requests.

DECISION

This letter is to inform you that it will not be possible to respond to
your request within the cost threshold.

We estimate that the cost of complying with this request would exceed the
appropriate limit. The appropriate limit has been specified in regulations
and for agencies outside central Government; this is set at £450.00. This
represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours [at a rate
of £25 per hour] in determining whether the MPS holds the information, and
locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

Once part of the request goes over cost, the whole request is exempt by
virtue of section 12 and there is no obligation to answer any part of the
request. Therefore, In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act
2000, this letter acts as a Refusal Notice for the whole of your request
under Section 12 (2) (See ICO decision notice in Legal Annex).

REASONS FOR DECISION

It would require a significant effort to locate and extract information
that may or may not be available. Having made enquiries with various
members of staff from Central Operations Command, I have established that
the information you require is not held on a central database though it
may be held locally and I estimate that the FOIA cost threshold would be
exceeded on the basis of the time needed to conduct the searches outlined
below:

You have requested the number of times the head of Central Operations has
received requests to authorise baton gunners/Kestrel Teams in the last
five years.

The authority to make Baton Gunners (or Public Order Attenuating Energy
Projectile (AEP) Launchers) available for operational purposes is made by
officers of Commander level and above.

Between 2007 and 2011, there have been 4 commissioners and 4 deputy
commissioners. Each deputy commissioner has at least 3 commanders in
Central Operations Command. To comply with your request for the number of
times the head of Central Operations has received requests to authorise
baton gunners/Kestrel Teams in the last five years, I would have to
contact each of those individuals and ask them to provide me with the
number of requests they dealt with whilst in post. If I allowed each of
these 20 people an hour to find and provide me with the requested
information not only would it put the request above the cost limit,
additionally it would be very difficult to obtain an accurate result as
many of the individuals have retired or left the MPS.

An alternative and more accurate way of obtaining the information would be
to retrieve and look through the operation orders of Central Operations
Command from 2007 to 2011 for information relevant to your request. As I
have previously mentioned, this information is not recorded on a central
database and therefore would mean manually looking for the information
requested. There are approximately 4500 public order events per year and
Central Operations Command deals with about half of these. To provide you
with the information requested would mean doing a manual check for the
requests and could involve looking through the documents for in excess of
2000 events for each year to establish whether information relevant to
your request was held.

Section 16 (duty to assist)

We are required to offer you the opportunity to redefine your request
within the cost limit.

Your request asks for a vast amount of information which would not be held
centrally and would require a disproportionate amount of work just to
establish whether information that may be relevant was held.

If you were to narrow your questions to particular events or a more recent
and narrower time frame, I may be able to assist. However, please note
some of the information you have requested has been previously published.

At a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority on 24th November 2011,
Commissioner Hogan-Howe said that the MPS " During the last year we have
actually authorised the movement of rubber bullets I think it is on 22
days because it is a reasonable preparation if we expect there may be some
risk of a problem.”

Below is an internet link to the transcript of the MPA meeting. The quote
above can be found on page 24.

http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/committe...

Details of some other authorisations have been publicised in the media. I
found the following links doing an internet search on the terms ˜rubber
bullets" and ˜baton gunners":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/07...
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/11/0...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l...
http://www.london-student.net/breaking-n...
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/08/0...
http://www.channel4.com/news/students-sa...
http://www.carolinelucas.com/assets/file...

Please also be aware that if you redefine your request that some of the
information requested may be subject to exemptions under the Freedom of
Information Act because if disclosed could identify the methodology used
when specific tactical options are considered by the MPS. Specifically,
disclosure of some of the information requested would identify the types
of events that the MPS has considered baton gunners, as a tactical option.

Though I have made suggestions and given an example to assist in
redefining this request may I stress that this does not mean that I have
ascertained whether the MPS holds any information regarding this request.
Some of information you seek is in a sensitive area and under the Freedom
of Information Act it is possible that we will rely on our right to
neither confirm nor deny its existence or place other exemptions on it.

Legal Annex

Section 12 (2)
Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to
comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of
complying with that paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.

Section 17 of the Act provides:
(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 17(5) of the Act provides:
(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that
fact.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 230 3153 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?
You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.
Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.
Ask to have the decision looked at again–
The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.
That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.
Complaint
If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.
Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.
For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear  Mr Sands,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030000404

I write in connection with your letter dated 2 March 2012 requesting that
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response to your request
for information relating to:

* Original FOI case number 2012020000836.

The review will be conducted in accordance with the MPS complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 30 March
2012.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

Ms. S Strong
FOIA Complaints Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear  Mr Sands,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030000404

I write in connection with your letter dated  2 March 2012 requesting that
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response to your request
for information relating to:

* Original FOI case number 2012020000836.

As your letter of complaint seeks a list of the 22 operational/events
where authorisation was granted as referred to in a MPA link, I will refer
this new request to the FOI Customer Service Team to log and formally
acknowledge.

In the meantime I will continue to review your original request received
on the 6th February 2012, unless otherwise directed.

Yours sincerely

Ms S.Strong
FOIA Complaints Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Mr Sands

NOTE; Apoligies for you receiving this acknowledgement letter late , as
your request was missed at first as you put this request ( with a request
you made for a internal review.

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030002616
I write in connection with your request for information  which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 02/03/2012.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

"RE; Autorisation for Baton Gunners;

I find this response quite absurd, particularly the suggestion that  in
order to find records you would have to contact former staff,     rather
than check the MPS own records.    Clearly from the comments you have
quoted this information is  available to the MPS Commissioner, at least
for the current year.    

 So, Please list the 22 operations/events where authorisation was granted,
as mentioned in  

   http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/committe...  

 A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is     available
on the Internet at this address:    
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/au...  "
 

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party.  In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this
deadline.  If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Peter Deja on telephone number 02071613640 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Policy and Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Mr Sands

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030002616

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 02/03/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

RE; Autorisation for Baton Gunners;

I find this response quite absurd, particularly the suggestion that  in
order to find records you would have to contact former staff, rather than
check the MPS own records. Clearly from the comments you have quoted this
information is available to the MPS Commissioner, at least for the current
year. So, Please list the 22 operations/events where authorisation was
granted, as mentioned in

 http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/committe...

 A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/au...

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at Public Order and Operational Support.

DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am not required
by statute to release the information requested. This letter serves as a
Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 31(1) (a)(b) - Law enforcement

REASONS FOR DECISION

You have requested details of the 22 operations and/or events where
authorisation to use rubber bullets was granted last year. The information
you have requested is such that if it were disclosed it could identify the
methodology used when specific tactical options are considered by the MPS.
Specifically, disclosure of the information requested would identify the
types of events and operations that the MPS has considered the use of
rubber bullets as a tactical option.

I believe disclosure of this information would cause operational harm to
the MPS and affect our ability to fulfil our core function of law
enforcement in the future as disclosure of the information would allow
members of the public to identify the resources used to police future
individual events. This would enable individuals that are intent on
causing disruption to identify strengths and weaknesses which could be
exploited causing harm to members of the public. Additionally this harm
would extend to officers deployed at specific events and operations.
 
Should these weaknesses be exploited, then there is a strong possibility
of disruption causing distress to members of the public and subsequently
loss of confidence in the MPS.  The reallocation of resources would impact
on the ability to prevent and detect crime. Regular abstractions would
hinder other MPS priorities.

Sections 31 is a prejudice based, qualified exemption and there is a
requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or
not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest
test.  

Section 31(1)(a)(b) Evidence of Harm

Under the Freedom of Information Act, we cannot, and do not request the
motives of any applicant for information.  We have no doubt the vast
majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and the requestors
do not have any ulterior motives. However, in disclosing information to
one applicant, we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in
the world. This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested and
concerned applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to
those who would use the information to gain an advantage over our ability
to proportionately police protests, demonstrations and other public order
type events.

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed,
consideration has been given to the potential harm that could be caused by
disclosure.

The disclosure of such information could create an awareness of
deployments for specific types of events and whilst the MPS is comfortable
in disclosing the overall police deployments of major events (i.e. where
300 or more police officer shifts are required), to disclose specific
tactics (e.g. the use of rubber bullets) at specific events may be likely
to have an adverse effect on the effectiveness of police management.

Policing is intelligence led. Authorisations for this tactical option to
be made available at an event or operation would be made in part, as a
result of the intelligence that is available for an event or operation.
 Disclosure of the requested information is likely to show the level of
policing interest that has or has not occurred in a specific area of
policing and would enable those engaged in criminal activity to identify
the focus of policing.

The release of such information would reveal operational information which
would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a
failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public. This
would affect law enforcement as more officers would be required to police
future events.

It is very likely that the information requested may harm our
relationships within communities,  with organisations and event organisers
making them less inclined to engage with us. This would have a direct
impact on the organising and policing of future events and operations.

For example, Commander Pountain's confirmation that approval had been
granted for authorisation of baton gunners at the TUC march on 30th
November 2011 was the focus of much media attention (see relevant links
below). It led to outrage, was taken as a threat and was considered to be
inflammatory by event organisers and others (see twitter comments within
the links).

I believe the exempt information would indeed place the public at greater
risk of unlawful behaviour if would-be criminals are provided the
sensitive tactical deployments that may be intelligence led.

Public Interest Test

The public interest is not what interests the public, but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole.  It is not in the
public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS's
ability to fulfil its core functions.  Public order events can be highly
emotive and the manner in which they are planned and policed are rarely
disclosed so that the tactics and resources and intelligence used do not
become public knowledge thereby rendering them ineffective.

Section 31 Considerations favouring disclosure

There is a public interest in disclosure of this type of information.
Disclosure would enable the public to see where public funds are being
spent, provide accurate information and reduce speculation and falsehoods
around the policing of protests, demonstrations and other public order
events which would increase public awareness and may reduce crime or lead
to more information from the public. By disclosing the level of policing
activity at individual events, members of the public would be able to plan
which events are suitable to attend and take measures to ensure their own
safety.  This would reinforce the MPS's commitment to openness and
transparency.

Section 31 Considerations favouring non-disclosure

I am of the opinion that it is not in the public interest to disclose
sensitive operational information that demonstrates intelligence led
deployments by the MPS at specific points in time when planning and
policing a public order event. Disclosure would hinder the ability of the
MPS to prevent and detect crime when planning for future events.

It would not be in the public interest to provide the level of detail
available to the MPS with regards to the planning and policing events of
this nature. The withheld information would assist those planning to
commit acts of violence, for example against individuals, the police or
buildings. Disclosure of the type of intelligence and capabilities
available to the police at a specific point in time would enable people
intent on committing criminal activity to circumvent methods deployed to
keep the peace.

As explained within the evidence of harm, to enable the public to be
better informed about the intelligence, capabilities and resources
available for planning and policing protests and the like, would greatly
impact on police resources. There are likely to be individuals who seek to
obtain tactical and strategic details. This information could be used to
improve their criminal plans on avoiding detection and apprehension at
public order events, whilst placing individuals at greater risk. It would
not be in the public interest to disclose the exempt information as it is
likely to impact on police resources.

I believe the exempt information would indeed place the public at greater
risk of unlawful behaviour if would-be criminals are provided the
sensitive tactical and methodological detail, intelligence and decisions
contained within the information held by the MPS.

The MPS are likely to need to adapt their tactics and strategies at future
public order events and operations if through the FOIA, the public at
large are able to ascertain the intelligence, capabilities and resources
available for planning and policing public order type events. Disclosure
of operational capabilities and intelligence would enable criminals to
evade apprehension and detection at similar future events. For this
reason, I am of the opinion that the public interest favours
non-disclosure.

Balance Test

The strongest reason favouring disclosure of the information in full is
that it would enable the public to gain an understanding of the
considerations, decisions, intelligence and options available to officers
policing public order events. This will enable the public to gain a better
understanding of the professional and lawful strategies the MPS put in
place to police such events.

The strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is that the withheld
information is linked to intelligence available to police during the
planning and policing of public order type events. Disclosure would hinder
the ability of the MPS to prevent and detect crime at future similar
events, if they become aware of the resources and capabilities available
to the MPS at specific points in time. This information can be used to try
and evade future detection at events where there is a likelihood of a
public order situation. This is particularly so if the public are aware of
what type of intelligence and resources the MPS are likely to have
available and use, as it also indicates what information they are not
likely or unlikely to obtain and decisions they may take in a given
difficult circumstance.

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the remaining dates would not be in the public interest.  I
consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
fully disclosed does not outweigh the arguments favouring exemption.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.  

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 230 3153 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 31 (1) (a) (b) of the Act provides:

(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice,
(a) the prevention or detection of crime.
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders

Relevant Links

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/11/0...
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/11/4...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wor...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
http://www.channel4.com/news/students-sa...
http://www.oxbridgeessays.com/blog/tuiti...
http://www.wessexscene.co.uk/opinion/201...

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Mr Sands,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030000404

Further to our letter of 19 March 2012, I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

* Original FOI case number 2012020000836

I hope to complete your review no later than 1 May 2012. Should there be
any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as
possible.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Mr Sands,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030000404

Further to our letter of 19 March 2012, I am now able to provide a
response to your complaint dated 2 March 2012 concerning:

* Original FOI case number 2012020000836  

Original Request for information (dated 6/2/12)
1. How many times has the head of Central Operations received requests to
authorise baton gunners / Kestrel teams to be on standby in each of the
last five years?
     
2. How many times has the head of Central Operations refused
authorisation?
     
3. Please list the operations/events where authorisation was granted, as
in question 1, if this is possible within the costs limit for FoI
requests.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to:

* Uphold the original decision

REASON FOR DECISION

The original response confirmed the MPS was unable to comply with your
request by virtue of Section 12(2), as it was estimated that the cost of
complying with your request would exceed the appropriate limit.

Your letter of complaint (dated 2/3/12) requested an internal review of
that decision.

To conduct this review, I have made fresh enquiries within CO11 (Public
Order Unit) about how the MPS could acquire the information you have
requested within the appropriate 18 hours limit.

It is the case that the MPS do not keep readily available lists or records
of requests/refusals for the making available of ‘Attenuating Energy
Projectile’s (AEPs or Baton Rounds) in given events or operations. Whilst
this information will be recorded within MPS premises or systems, the MPS
policy is that they can be made available to a command team only by an
Assistant Commissioner (rather than just the Head of Central Operations).
They can be deployed by a Commander once they have been made available.

As explained within the original response, between 2007 and 2011, there
have been 4 commissioners and 4 deputy commissioners. Each deputy
commissioner has at least 3 commanders in Central Operations Command. To
comply with your request for the number of times the ‘head of Central
Operations’ has received requests to authorise baton gunners/Kestrel Teams
in the last five years, would require either these individuals (or staff
members who assisted them) to search through operational orders and
correspondence dealt with whilst in post.

As the MPS do not and are not required to keep a central record of
authorisations or refusals, the only way to locate, retrieve or extract
the information you have requested is to trawl through operation orders
for such requests or refusals in regards to every event.

In consideration CO11 alone planned approximately 180 events in the time
period you refer to, there will be at least 180 operational orders per
year for the MPS to manual check through, to ascertain whether information
pertinent to your request is recorded in them.

However, a search of these operational orders would only be likely to
assist in ascertaining whether information is held for question three
only, as the MPS is not required to have created an formal recording
process for requests or refusals of authorisations for baton
gunners/kestrel teams to be on standby at a given event/operation. Such
information in respect of one to three would be likely to instead be held
in emails or decision logs. As we do not centrally collate the number of
times a request has been made, likewise we would not centrally record how
many times such requests have been refused.

The appropriate limit has been specified in regulations and for agencies
outside central Government; this is set at £450.00. This represents the
estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours [at a rate of £25 per hour]
in determining whether the MPS holds the information, and locating,
retrieving and extracting the information.

Due to the connected nature of your requests, they have been aggregated.
As at least one part of your request is estimated to exceed the cost
threshold, the full request is exempt by virtue of section 12 and there is
therefore no obligation to answer any part of the request.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter
upholds the original Refusal Notice for your request under Section 12(2)
of the Act.

Section 16 of the Act (Duty to assist)

It remains the case that to narrow your questions to particular events may
be able to locate/retrieve or extract information in respect of requests
to authorise baton gunners/Kestrel teams. The MPS would then be able to
look at the operation order for each event and try and locate any
pertinent information.

Please also be aware that if you narrow your request, there remains the
possibility that if Section 12 does not apply, information located may
still be subject to exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act.
Should exemptions apply, these considerations will then be dealt with at
the appropriate time is necessary.

Additionally, I believe the original response also adequately assisted you
under Section 16 by referring to already publicly available information.

It was explained in the original response that at a meeting of the
Metropolitan Police Authority (now referred to as the Mayor of London’s
Office for Policing and Crime) on 24th November 2011, Commissioner
Hogan-Howe said that the MPS " During the last year we have actually
authorised the movement of rubber bullets I think it is on 22 days because
it is a reasonable preparation if we expect there may be some risk of a
problem.”

For ease of reference, I provide the internet link to the transcript of
the meeting, in which the quote above can be found on page 24.

http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/committe...

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Ms S. Strong
FOIA Complaints Officer

Legal Annex

Section 17(1)&(5) (Refusal of a Request) of the Act provides:
(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that
fact.

Section 12(2) (Cost exceeds appropriate limit) of the Act provides:
Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to
comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of
complying with that paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk