BT Exchange Robberies

Dear P. John

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010120003714
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/12/2010. I note you seek
access to the following information:

"In 2008 BT suffered a sequence of high value burglaries on telephone
exchanges in Central London, including Mayfair (*) and Stepney (**).
Please could you disclose to me
- the present status of the investigation into the Mayfair and Stepney
burglaries
- details of any prosecutions or arrests following your investigation
- copies of any publicity statements/press releases/wanted notices etc
associated with the cases
- the estimated value, and nature of the equipment taken in both cases
(*) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/11/...
(**) http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/12... "

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
contact me at the above e-mail address, quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
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

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city 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). The MPS has a
strict staff conduct policy. Any email that causes you concern should be
reported via the Contacts section on the official MPS Website at
[1]www.met.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.met.police.uk/

Dear Mr John

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010120003714

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/12/2010. I note you seek
access to the following information:

"In 2008 BT suffered a sequence of high value burglaries on telephone
exchanges in Central London, including Mayfair (*) and Stepney (**).

Please could you disclose to me

- the present status of the investigation into the Mayfair and Stepney
burglaries

- details of any prosecutions or arrests following your investigation

- copies of any publicity statements/press releases/wanted notices etc
associated with
the cases

- the estimated value, and nature of the equipment taken in both cases

(*) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/11/...

(**) http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/12...

.
EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the Directorate of Public Affairs and the London Boroughs of
Westminster and Tower Hamlets.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located records relevant to your request.

DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information I have decided to
disclose the answers to question one and three. However, I have decided to
exempt the answers to question two and four by virtue of s.40(2) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA) governing personal information and
s. 30(1)(a)&(b) FoIA governing investigations. I have provided the
sections relevant to this refusal in the legal appendix below.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before I outline my decision I would like to outline the parameters set
out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a
request for information can be answered.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of access to
information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a
request must, if permitted, confirm if that public authority holds the
requested information, unless it would be harmful to do so, and, if so,
then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject
to a number of exemptions, which are designed to enable public authorities
to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the
Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then
considered public information and must be communicated to any individual
should a request be received.

Under the Act, there are two types of exemptions that can be applied to
information considered unsuitable for public release. These exemptions are
referred to as absolute exemptions and qualified exemptions. When an
absolute exemption is applied to information, a public authority is not
required to consider whether release of that information is in the 'public
interest'. When a qualified exemption is applied to information, a public
authority must establish whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing
or withholding the requested information. The public interest is
determined by conducting a 'Public Interest Test' (PIT). Both absolute and
qualified exemptions can be further divided into class-based or
prejudice-based exemptions. Class-based exemptions are those in which it
is assumed the disclosure of information would result in harm. There is
therefore no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be.
Prejudiced-based exemptions are those where firstly, it is necessary to
establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that may result from disclosure
and secondly, if prejudice/harm is not certain, to determine the
likelihood of it occurring.

I have considered your request for information within the provisions set
out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Question One:

Both investigations are now closed.

Question Two:

I have decided to exempt the answer to this question by virtue of s.40(2)
FoIA and s.30(1)(a)&(b) FoIA. Below I have explained how these exemptions
are applicable to this question.

Question Three:

Please see the below press releases:

Statement 11 Sept 2008:

Police were called at about 01.00 on 11.09.08 to reports of a burglary at
a business premises on Farm Street, W1.

Statement 25 Sept 2008:

Police were called at about 0520 on 25.9.08 to reports of a burglary at a
business premises on Commercial Road, Stepney Green.

IF ASKED: Value of property stolen = NPTD

What was stolen = We are working with BT to establish what has been
stolen.

Was premises BT exchange = Yes

IF ASKED: Is this linked to the previous burglary at a BT telephone
exchange on 11.9.08 in Westminster? It is too soon to comment at this
early stage of the investigation.

Statement 12 Dec 2008:

A reward of up to **15,000 is being offered for information in connection
with a burglary at a BT exchange on Commercial Road, Stepney Green.

Police were called at about 05:20 on Thur. 25.9.08 [correct date] re: a
burglary at the premises.

Telecommunications equipment, which assists in powering the
telecommunications network in the area, was stolen during the burglary.

Detectives from Tower Hamlets CID are investigating.

BT is offering the reward for information leading to the arrest and
prosecution of the person or person allegedly responsible for the offence.

DS Rob Brown of Tower Hamlets CID said: "This type of incident can cause
real disruption to the telephone network and deprive people of the use of
their telephones and computers. It is essential the persons responsible
for this irresponsible crime are brought to justice and prevented from
committing similar acts in the future."

Mark Hughes, BT's Group Security Director, said: "Attacks on BT's network
can impact upon the safety of local communities. BT takes these matters
very seriously and we fully support the Met Police in their enquiries. We
have decided to offer a reward for information to bring those people
responsible for this, and similar incidents in the London area, to
justice."

Anyone with information should contact DS Brown on 020 8217 3772; if you
wish to remain anonymous call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

IF ASKED:

= Why are appeals only being offered 3 months after the offence -
Inquiries have been underway and we now feel public appeals may assist the
investigation.

= Details re technical equipment stolen from BT Exchange in Stepney Green
- refer BT 020-7356 4822

= Further details re disruption caused to the telecommunications network -
refer BT 020-7356 4822

= Value of property stolen - Property is of a high value

= Are Tower Hamlets investigating any other incidents of this kind - No

= Is this incident linked to a burglary at a BT Exchange in Westminster on
11.9.08 [C 149-08 refers] - NFPUB: This incident is being investigated
separately by Central Westminster CID

= Has BT reported any further incidents in London to the Met police -
NFPUB: Refer BT 020-7356 4822. Any other incidents would be investigated
separately by BOCUS.

= re Motive for these burglaries/what happens to the stolen equipment -
This is under investigation. Refer BT 020-7356 4822

Question Four:

I consider s.30(1)(a)(b) FoIA and s.40(2) FoIA is engaged in regards to
the information you have requested. Below I have explained how these
exemptions are applicable to this question.

s.30(1)(a)&(b) FoIA:

The information you have requested is held for the purposes of a criminal
investigation. The information is also held by the MPS for a specific
purpose, which in this case is to determine whether a person has broken
the law. This exemption can be engaged for information held at any time
for the purpose of an investigation, whether the case is ongoing, closed
or abandoned.

Section 30 is a class-based and qualified exemption. I am therefore
required to provide you with a public interest test on the engagement of
this exemption.

Public Interest Test

Public Interest in favouring disclosure:

The underlying principles of the establishment of FoIA, are to create
transparency, allow public scrutiny and increasing public debate.
Furthermore, the FoIA requires public authorities to be held accountable
and transparent for their actions. Based upon this notion the public have
the right to know how that public authority conducts itself in their
business.

Criminal activity will always be of interest to the local community it may
effect. There is therefore a local interest in the disclosure of more
detailed information relating to the burglaries that have occurred at BT
premises. Disclosure would allow the public to gain insight into the type
of activity occurring in their local area, empowering them to make the
decision as to whether the community may need to better protect its
interests and people from crime. Disclosure may enable the community to
further understand that the police are working hard to police criminal
activity effectively. Disclosure may also dispel rumours and false
speculation in regards to criminal activity that is believed to have taken
place in the local area.

Public Interest in maintaining the exemption:

Whilst it is paramount to uphold the principles underpinned by the FoIA,
it is equally important to balance those considerations in maintaining the
exemption. The information you have requested is only held for the
purposes of preventing and detecting crime. Disclosure would detrimentally
effect the prevention of crime. By publishing the exact value of the
property and the nature of the equipment taken in both cases will place
intelligence into the public domain indicating how commercially viable
equipment at the exchanges is. This disclosure may lead criminals or
would-be criminals to target those areas where they see 'beneficial'.
Further criminal acts could subsequently disrupt the phones services for
the community, either directly through loss of service or indirectly with
BT resources redirected to deal with the damage caused by the thieves. I
therefore believe our services of future law enforcement capabilities
would be detrimentally affected by disclosure, as it is likely to lead to
a rise in criminal activity.

Additionally, to routinely publish information relating to the
investigations will undoubtedly prove to be a detriment effect to
individuals' willingness to assist the police in such cases. Therefore,
whilst I do not argue that the release of the requested information would
allow the MPS to remain transparent and actively promote public discussion
which is underpinned by FoIA, it could have a negative impact as those who
may be able to assist the police may be more likely to withhold from
assisting us further, should they feel information surrounding cases be
continuously released. This is based on the fact that third parties may
have imparted information in confidence and would be used for the purpose
of that investigation.

Disclosure of this level of detail is not in the public interest,
particularly considering there are already established procedures in
place for disclosure, to aid investigations, for example through appeals
for witnesses through media channels. The press statements I have located
and disclosed to you above which relates to this request, is an example of
such a process where disclosure on an individual incident is in the public
interest.

Balance Test:

On balance I find that the considerations favouring non-disclosure
outweighs disclosure. I appreciate this is not the outcome you would have
liked. However, I base my decision on the understanding that the public
interest is not what interests the public, but is what would be of greater
good, if released, to the public as a whole. There is a strong viewpoint
that the MPS should be open and transparent and more importantly be held
accountable. In addition, another consideration favouring disclosure is
that it will inform the public of burglaries occurring within the area and
the precautionary steps to protect themselves and/or their businesses.

However, in this case, I am of the opinion that these considerations are
outweighed by those considerations to maintain this exemption. Future
investigations could be hindered and the ability of the police to detect
them greatly reduced by disclosing important intelligence. This would
impact more greatly if the ability of the police to detect and prosecute
the offenders is hampered in anyway.

s.40(2) FoIA:

I am unable to disclose whether anyone was arrested owing to s.40(2) FoIA.
One of the main differences between the Data Protection Act 1998 and the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA) is that any information released
under FOI is released into the public domain, not just to the individual
requesting the information. As such, any release that identifies an
individual through releasing their personal data, even third party
personal data, is exempt. Personal Data is defined by Section 1 of the
Data Protection Act as data that relates to a living individual who can be
identified.

In order for the exemption provided under Section 40(2) FoIA to be engaged
disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first or
second condition as defined by subsections 3 and 4. In this case section
40(2) FoIA is relevant and applicable. Section 40(2) FoIA alongside
s.40(3) FoIA provides an absolute exemption if the information breaches
one of the data protection principles (s.40(3)(i) FoIA). These data
protection principles make sure that personal information is processed
fairly, for limited purposes, adequate, relevant and not excessive. They
ensure personal information remains accurate, up to date, processed in
line with your rights, secure and is not transferred to other countries
without adequate protection.

The first data protection principle states:
1. Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully an, in particular,
shall not be processed unless-
(a) at least one of the conditions in schedule 2 is met.
(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions
in Schedule 3 is also met.

Applying this principle to this FoI case, to release whether anyone was
arrested or prosecuted would release personal data of third party
individuals. This is because to release those arrested for those specific
offences may lead to identifications of individuals involved in those
cases. I understand that the information taken on its own, i.e. there were
X number of arrests may not reveal personal data in itself. However,
release of this information, taken together with information that may
already be in the public domain could be pieced together and result in
links being made between the information and individuals, leading to
subsequent identifications.

This would thereby breach the first data protection principle. To release
this data would contravene the data protection principles as the
legitimate expectations of individuals, possibly identifiable within the
information requested, is that their information will not be disseminated
within the public domain. This would thereby fail to meet Condition 6 of
Schedule 2 of the DPA as there is no legitimate interest in releasing any
information we hold for this purpose.

Their legitimate expectation would be that their personal information
would be treated confidentially and not disclosed to the public. To
re-iterate, release of this information pieced together with other
segments of information already in the public domain could well lead to
their identification. It is my considered opinion that an individual is
entitled to a certain level of privacy regarding their identity and
thereby the full release the information has the potential risk of
identifying the individual(s) concerned. This could potentially allow an
individual to make links to related information in order to try and
identify an individual. When considering the release of the information I
consider that there is a higher threshold to safeguard personal privacy as
the legitimate expectation would be that any personal information would be
treated confidentially and not disclosed to the public.

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 02071613606 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Audeeba Ali
Quality and Assurance Advisor

LEGAL APPENDIX:

Section 17 (1)(a)(b)(c) (Refusal of 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 of 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 that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

s.40 Personal information provides:

(1) Any information to which a request for information relates is exempt
information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the
data subject.
(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if-
(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.
(3) The first condition is-
(a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to
(d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the [1998 c. 29.] Data
Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of
the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene-
(i) any of the data protection principles, or
(ii) section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause
damage or distress), and
(b) in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member
of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the
data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of the
[1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held
by public authorities) were disregarded.
(4) The second condition is that by virtue of any provision of Part IV of
the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from
section 7(1)(c) of that Act (data subject's right of access to personal
data).

Schedule 2, Condition 6 of the Data Protection Act provides:

6 (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests
pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom
the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any
particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or
legitimate interests of the data subject.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances
in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied.

Data Protection Act:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/Acts1998/ukp...

Personal Data is defined by Section 1 of the Data Protection Act as data
that relates to a living individual who can be identified.

s.30 Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities,
provides: .
(1)Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has
at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-
(a)any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with
a view to it being ascertained-
(i)whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii)whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,
(b)any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the
circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute
criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.
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

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city 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). The MPS has a
strict staff conduct policy. Any email that causes you concern should be
reported via the Contacts section on the official MPS Website at
[1]www.met.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.met.police.uk/

Dear Mr John

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011010003994

I write in connection with your letter dated 26 January 2011 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response to your
request for information relating to:

* Original FOI case number 2010120003714

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS's complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 23 February
2011.

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

S. 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

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city 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). The MPS has a
strict staff conduct policy. Any email that causes you concern should be
reported via the Contacts section on the official MPS Website at
[1]www.met.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.met.police.uk/

Dear Mr John

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011010003994

Further to our letter of 2 February 2011, I am now able to provide a
response to your complaint dated 26 January 2011.

Original Request (dated 23/12/10)
In 2008 BT suffered a sequence of high value burglaries on
telephone exchanges in Central London, including Mayfair (*) and Stepney
(**).
Please could you disclose to me:

1. The present status of the investigation into the Mayfair and
Stepney burglaries
2. Details of any prosecutions or arrests following your
investigation
3. Copies of any publicity statements/press releases/wanted notices
etc associated with the cases
4. The estimated value, and nature of the equipment taken in both
cases

(*) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/11/...
(**) http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/12...

DECISION

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

* Vary the original decision

REASON FOR DECISION

Your letter of complaint (dated 26/01/11) requests I specifically only
review question two. Whilst it is usual procedure for an Internal Review
to focus on the full original request, in this case I will focus only on
question two, without consideration of the remaining sections.

In regards to question two, you have stated that in order for the police
to be accountable, and to show that justice is being done, it is necessary
to establish whether criminal complaints do (or do not) result in
prosecutions of offences.

You have explained that at the very least you would expect the MPS to
confirm whether or not criminals were prosecuted. You further hoped that
the MPS would disclose the number of prosecutions for these burglaries.

You have therefore requested the MPS review the handling of your second
question, to consider if we can confirm whether or not anyone was
prosecuted, as well as provide statistical data for the number of people
prosecuted.

You have confirmed that you are not interested in the identity of the
individuals responsible.

On careful consideration of your request I can provide the following
information.

In regards to the reported burglary in Tower Hamlets HT (Stepney), there
were two arrests made, however no prosecutions resulted from those
specific arrests.

In regards to the reported burglary in Westminster CW (Mayfair), there was
one arrest. This arrest resulted in the offence being taken into
consideration (TIC) at court. A TIC is classed as a prosecution.

Any further information regarding the specific details of each arrest
remains exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 40(2).

Section 40(2)(3) (Personal Information)
In consideration of question two your FOIA request, I believe disclosure
of the details regarding arrests would find the MPS in breach of the first
data protection principle requirement of fairness. I consider this to be
the case whilst bearing in mind the MPS is now confirms the number of
arrests and the fact there were no prosecutions following those specific
arrests. Any further detail in regards to the arrests would disclose
personal information relating to third parties.

I find the detail you require in relation to the arrests and prosecutions
can be classed as 'sensitive personal data' as defined under section 2 of
the Data Protection Act (DPA). This is because you are requesting
information concerning the data subjects 'commission or alleged commission
by him of any offence' as well as information relating to 'any proceedings
for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the
disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such
proceedings'. As the information you have requested is relevant to those
matters, there is a higher threshold for lawful disclosure in regards to
deciding whether disclosure would be fair to the data subjects.

It is important for me to explain that in considering this exemption, I
have taken into account that any information released under the FOIA is
released into the public domain, not just to the individual requesting the
information. As such, any release that identifies an individual through
releasing their personal data is exempt. Personal data is defined (by
Section 1 of the DPA), as data that relates to a living individual who can
be identified.

I believe the information you have requested can be classed as personal
data. I find this to be the case as it constitutes data which relates to
living individuals who can be identified from the data, or from the data
and other information which is in the possession of the MPS. Not only do I
believe it is possible to identify a living individual from the data you
have requested due to its detail, I also find that the individual is among
the focus of that information.

The data is 'biographical' in a significant sense, as it is directly
regarding arrest details relating to third parties. Disclosing this level
of detail, makes the individuals arrested extremely relevant to the data
you have requested. I therefore believe the information you have requested
has the data subject at its very focus and affects the subject's personal
privacy. As you have requested personal data which I believe places
individuals at risk of prejudice by disclosure (either the arrested or
even those not arrested), it is important the MPS rely on the use of
Section 40(2)(3) of the Act.

When applying this principle to your request, I find disclosure would
identify the personal data of third party individuals. This is because to
release details relating to specific arrests would further identify
individuals connected to a crime, even if the actual names of the arrested
are not disclosed. As the information discloses personal data relating to
those individuals, I have concerns that more detailed disclosure would
breach one of the data protection principles.

The first data protection principle states:
"1. Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully an, in
particular, shall not be processed unless-
(a) at least one of the conditions in schedule 2 is met."

I find the above part 1 of the first data protection principle most
relevant to consider in regards to whether disclosure would be 'fair and
lawful'.

In consideration that I have disclosed the number of arrests and
prosecution information, I do not believe disclosure of the specific
details of arrests would be 'fair'. Bearing this point in mind, I also
believe it is necessary to have considered Schedule 2, Condition 6 which
considers that;

"the processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests
pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom
the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any
particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or
legitimate interests of the data subject"

In taking the above paragraph into consideration, I particularly take
account the term 'necessary'. Should it be necessary to disclose the
information you have requested, I believe there would need to be a clear
and pressing social need. Disclosure is also only permissible if it is not
'unwarranted' by reason of 'prejudice to the rights and freedoms or
legitimate interests' of the third parties whose personal data is
contained within the arrest details. On balancing the necessary interests
of disclosure with the question of fairness, I do not believe it would be
fair for the MPS to disclose the full arrest details. This decision
specifically takes into account I have now disclosed the number of arrests
and prosecution information regarding these high profile burglaries. I
believe any further details regarding the arrests would be unwarranted,
and there is no legitimate interest in doing so.

The MPS is rightly expected to protect the identities and personal
information of vulnerable victims as well as those connected to a crime in
any way. The MPS would not legitimately be expected to routinely disclose
the personal details you have requested under the Freedom of Information
Act.

In consideration of the above points I believe individuals arrested would
identify themselves by assessing the personal details regarding the
arrests, thereby breaching the first data protection principle. Therefore
I find that to release the information would contravene the data
protection principles, as the legitimate expectations of individuals,
(identifiable within the information requested), is that their information
will not be routinely released into the public domain. The MPS would thus
fail to meet Condition 6 of Schedule 2 of the DPA, as there is no
legitimate interest in releasing the information.

I appreciate you have only good intentions in obtaining the information
you have requested. However I do not believe any further information other
than the information I have disclosed at Internal Review stage would be
appropriate to disclose into the public domain. The information now
disclosed provides enough detail to the public of police action in regards
to these high profile burglaries.

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

S. Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer

Legal Annex

Section 17(1) 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 of 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 that fact,
(b)specifies the exemption in question, and
(c)states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 40(2)(3) of the Act provides:
(2)Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if-
(a)it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and
(b)either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.

(3)The first condition is-
(a)in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to
(d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act
1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public
otherwise than under this Act would contravene-
(i)any of the data protection principles, or
(ii)section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause
damage or distress), and
(b)in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member
of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the
data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of the Data
Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held by public
authorities) were disregarded.

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

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city 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).