Cayman Islands Investigation

Dear J T Pope

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010050005210
I write in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 28/05/2010. I note
you seek access to the following information:

* "My request concerns the 21 month investigation in the Cayman
Islands, by the Mets Directorate of Professional Standards. It has
been reported in the press of poor conduct of the DPS officers
whilst seconded to the islands. Including the alleged wrongful
arrest of a local Judge, the following statement taken from a
British newspaper who covered the story; "A retired High Court
judge from the UK, who flew to the Cayman Islands to review the
judge's arrest, declared it unlawful and the 'gravest abuse of
process'. This being only one of many criticism reported by the
media. why request is as follows; 1 Has any investigation
taken place into the DPS officers conduct whilst conducting this
investigation? 2 Has the matter been referred to the IPCC to
investigate? 3 Since this investigation, has any DPS Officer
concerned in the investigation, played any part in any other high
profile investigation? (by high profile I mean any investigation
that has attracted media attention). "

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 me at the above email address 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

show quoted sections

Dear J. T. Pope,
Thank you for your below email, I have forwarded it on to the unit
dealing with your request.
I have asked one of the Information Managers on that section if they
can supply you with a update on your request.

Kind regards

Peter Deja
Policy and Support Officer
Public Access Office
London SW6 1SF

Tel: 0207 161 3640
Fax:0207 161 3503
Email: [email address]

Protective Marking:
Not / Suitable for Publication:

Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within
and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to
consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of
Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will
consider information for release unless there is are valid and
proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive
information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such.
Further advice can be obtained from the Public Access Office - 783500.

show quoted sections

Dear J.T. Pope,
In regard your below email asking for update on your request - I have
asked the Information manager to provide you with a update.

Regards

Peter Deja
Policy and Support Officer
Public Access Office
London SW6 1SF

Tel: 0207 161 3640
Fax:0207 161 3503
Email: [email address]

Protective Marking:
Not / Suitable for Publication:

Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within
and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to
consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of
Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will
consider information for release unless there is are valid and
proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive
information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such.
Further advice can be obtained from the Public Access Office - 783500.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Pope,

I am sorry for the delay. The response to your request has been
completed and is being checked. I will be able to respond to you
shortly.

Yours sincerely

Damion

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Pope,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010050005210

I write in response to your request for information that was received by
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 28th May 2010. I apologise for
the delay in responding to your request and any inconvenience caused. I
note that you seek access to the following information:

My request concerns the 21 month investigation in the Cayman Islands, by
the Mets Directorate of Professional Standards. It has been reported in
the press of poor conduct of the DPS officers whilst seconded to the
islands. Including the alleged wrongful arrest of a local Judge, the
following statement taken from a British newspaper who covered the story;

A retired High Court judge from the UK, who flew to the Cayman Islands to
review the judge's arrest, declared it unlawful and the 'gravest abuse of
process'.

This being only one of many criticism reported by the media. My request is
as follows;

1. Has any investigation taken place into the DPS officers conduct whilst
conducting this investigation?

2. Has the matter been referred to the IPCC to investigate?

3. Since this investigation, has any DPS Officer concerned in the
investigation, played any part in any other high profile investigation?
(by high profile I mean any investigation that has attracted media
attention).

Following receipt of your request, I have researched information relevant
to your request. I can confirm that the information requested is held by
the MPS.

DECISION

* I have answered questions 1 and 2 in full.
* In relation to question 3, I have refused release under the provisions
of Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the
Act).

In respect of your request for:

Question 3
Since this investigation, has any DPS Officer concerned in the
investigation, played any part in any other high profile investigation?
(by high profile I mean any investigation that has attracted media
attention).

I have refused to release this information in that I consider it exempt
under the Act.

REASON FOR DECISION
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: Law Enforcement
Under Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information where its release would, or would be likely to,
prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and/or the apprehension or
prosecution of offenders. In this case, the information requested relates
to the roles DPS officers have played in DPS led internal investigations.
The release of this information could expose sensitive roles that DPS
officers have been and/or are currently deployed in. This could compromise
current DPS investigations, hinder DPS officers deployment in future
investigations and could place DPS officers at risk.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 31(a) and (b)
of the Act is both qualified and prejudice based. I am accordingly
required to conduct a public interest test to determine whether the
'public interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested
information. I must also establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that
may result from disclosure and where prejudice/harm is established but not
certain, determine the likelihood of it occurring.

Public Interest Test

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Accountability
When information disclosed relates directly to the efficiency and
effectiveness of officers. The purpose of the Act is to make public
authorities more accountable and this factor, therefore, may be applied to
a wide range of scenarios from how an individual or the force fulfils
their role or function, to policy decisions that have been taken in
relation to this investigation or general policy issues. In this instance,
disclosure allows public scrutiny of information relating to how the MPS
has deployed it officers in investigations. This would reinforce the MPS's
commitment to openness and transparency.

Public Debate
Where disclosure can assist individuals by raising awareness of issues
that may be of relevance to them. In this instance, it would allow the
public to see which DPS officers are deployed to specific investigations.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Investigations
Information relating to how DPS investigations have been conducted will
rarely be disclosed owing to the sensitivity surrounding the deployment of
officers in pro-actively investigating allegations of corruption in
seeking to prove or disprove MPS employees' involvement in crime and/or
serious misconduct. In particular when requests are made about DPS staff
involved in DPS investigations, there is a risk that release could expose
sensitive roles that DPS officers have been and/or are currently deployed
in. This could compromise current DPS investigations, hinder DPS officers
deployment in future investigations and could place DPS officers at risk.
The release of any information that would place officers at risk and/or
compromise ongoing investigations is unlikely to be in the public's
interest.

Health and Safety
Release of information relating to officers involved in high profile DPS
investigations could lead to the identification of DPS officers deployed
to other DPS investigations. This could place officers at risk of reprisal
from criminal networks and could also lead to investigations being
compromised.

Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the information requested would not be in the public
interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from releasing
named officers involvement in DPS led investigations, does not outweigh
the risk to current investigations and/or the safety of DPS officers.

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I
am not required by statute to release the information requested. This
letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17(1) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

Question 1
Has any investigation taken place into the DPS officers conduct whilst
conducting this investigation?

Senior officers were made aware of inappropriate behaviour involving an
officer on the enquiry team. This officer was immediately removed from the
Operation Tempura investigation, returned to London and received
management advice.

Question 2
Has the matter been referred to the IPCC to investigate?

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (the Act), I have decided to provide access to the information you
have requested by way of an internet link to the MPS website.

MPS Misconduct Investigation Guide
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/other_...

Section 21 of the Act provides:

(1) Information which is reasonably accessible to the application
otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), information which is held by a
public authority and does not fall within subsection (2)(b) is not to be
regarded as reasonably accessible to the applicant merely because the
information is available from the public authority itself on request,
unless the information is made available in accordance with the
authority's publication scheme and any payment required is specified in,
or determined in accordance with, the scheme.

Please refer to page 17 of the Misconduct Investigation Guide. For your
convenience, I have copied the relevant section below.

Under the guidelines set out by the IPCC:

"Referable Conduct - this is the requirement to refer certain 'recordable
conduct matters' to the IPCC for them to decide the mode of investigation.
Paragraph 13 Schedule 3 PRA 2002, as supplemented by regulation 5
P(C&M)Regs 2004. Recordable Conduct will be referred to the IPCC when;

(i) The matter relates to any incident or circumstances in or in
consequence of which any person has suffered death or serious injury**.
(ii) Serious sexual offence.
(iii) Serious assault.
(iv) Serious corruption.
(v) Criminal offence or disciplinary behaviour which is liable to lead to
disciplinary sanction and which in either case was aggravated by
discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of a person's race, sex, religion
or other status.
(vi) The Commission notifies the appropriate authority that it
requires that matter to be referred to the Commission for its
consideration.

** serious injury is defined by section 29(1) Part 2 PRA 2002 as a
fracture, a deep cut, a deep laceration or an injury causing damage
to an internal organ or the impairment of any bodily function."

The alleged conduct by the officers did not fall into any of the above
categories, therefore no referral was made.

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

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
the MPS and for your patience in awaiting a response to your request.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 230 5204 or at the email address at the top of this
notice, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Wendy Mason
Case Manager

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/