Overt filming policy and SOP

Dear Mr Sands,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009120002413
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 10/12/2009. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* "Please supply copies of the MPS current Policy and Standard Operating
Procedure for Overt Filming and Photography"

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 Katie London on telephone number 02071613907 quoting
the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Katie London
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 and addressed to:

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

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 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 Mr Sands

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009120002413

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 10/12/2009. I note you seek
access to the following information:

"Please supply copies of the MPS current Policy and Standard Operating
Procedure for Overt Filming and Photography."

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at the Territorial Policing Headquarters - Policy Unit.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

I can inform you that there is currently not an MPS Policy and Standard
Operating Procedure under the name "Overt Filming and Photography" and
therefore this information is not held. This is because they have been
replaced by the Visual Evidence Policy and associated SOP.

The Visual Evidence Policy is on our publication scheme and so is exempt
under Section 21(1). The associated SOP is in the process of being made
suitable for publication on our Publication Scheme in the New Year, and is
therefore exempt by virtue of Section 22(1).

This letter therefore serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17(1) of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

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 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 21(1) of the Act provides:

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

Section 22(1) of the Act provides:

22 Information intended for future publication
(1) Information is exempt information if-
(a) the information is held by the public authority with a view to its
publication, by the authority or any other person, at some future date
(whether determined or not),
(b) the information was already held with a view to such publication at
the time when the request for information was made, and
(c) it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the information should
be withheld from disclosure until the date referred to in paragraph (a).
As this exemption is qualified I am required to provide you with a public
interest test. Please see below.

Public Interest Test

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

To release the new SOP at this time would show the MPS to be accountable
for their actions in a field of immense public and media interest. It
would show to the public the current guidance followed by the police in
relation to overt filming and photography.

Disclosure at this time would also add to public awareness and debate
about the procedures to be undertaken in order to obtain evidence from
victims and witnesses as to the identity of suspects; and/or evidence from
photographic and CCTV images.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

The Freedom of Information Act legally allows members of the public to
request any information held by a public authority. In order to supply
this information, resources are allocated to locate and retrieve it. The
Section 21 and 22 exemptions were specifically laid down by parliament to
benefit those authorities who proactively publish information. To
constantly produce new and up to date elements of the currently published
information, in order to satisfy an additional need outside of the
publishing schedule, will render these exemptions less effective and
remove the benefits of proactive publication.

The intended time for publication, in the New Year, is imminent. The
associated SOP is being prepared for disclosure on our Publication Scheme.
Releasing a Standard Operating Procedure into the public domain is not
common practice, and so this is taking time to ensure operationally
sensitive information is not disclosed to the public. This requires
consultation with various units within the MPS and to disclose prematurely
could compromise our law enforcement processes.

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh disclosing the current SOP relating to
obtaining visual evidence at this time.

Please see below a link to the Visual Evidence Policy, which I believe is
pertinent to your request:

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/polici...

If you would like, I will be sure to send you the link to the relevant
information once published. I hope this is of assistance.

Under Section 16 of the Act, the MPS have a duty to assist. You may also
be interested in photography in public places, the Metropolitan Police
Service's approach towards which is a subject of regular debate.

We encourage officers and the public to be vigilant against terrorism, but
recognise the balance between effective policing and protecting Londoners
and respecting the rights of the media and the general public to take
photographs.

Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs
through briefings and internal communications. The link below details the
advice which is available to all officers and provides a summary of the
Metropolitan Police Service's guidance around photography in public
places.

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photograp...

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 Deborah Solomon on 0207 321 7078 or at the address at the top of
this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Inspector Thomson
Emerald - Policy Unit

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 and addressed to:

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

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 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 Mr Sands

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010010004254

I write in connection with your letter dated 21 January 2010 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response to your
request for information relating to:

* Original FOI case number 2009120002413.

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS's complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 19 February
2010.

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

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 and addressed to:

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

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 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 Mr. Sands

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010010004254

Further to our email of 26 January 2010, I am now able to provide a full
response to your complaint dated 21 January 2010 concerning:

* FOIA request number 2009120002413.

I note that in your original request, dated 10 December 2009, you asked
for the following:

"Please supply copies of the MPS current Policy and Standard Operating
Procedure for Overt Filming and Photography."

DECISION

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

* Vary the original response.

REASON FOR DECISION

I have today decided to vary the original response sent to you by
Inspector Thomson on 8 January 2010. In this letter I hope to explain to
you the letter issued in response to your original request, and answer
your recent queries.

In the original response it was confirmed to you that the MPS no longer
have a policy and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) entitled 'Overt
Filming and Photography', as they have been decommissioned and replaced by
the 'Visual Evidence Policy' and 'Evidential Images Standard Operating
Procedure'.

I can confirm that this is indeed the case. The 'Visual Evidence Policy'
was introduced on 29 July 2009 in order to amalgamate the policies around
many different areas of visual evidence, including overt filming and the
authorisation for video and other ID procedures. This policy was included
on our Publication Scheme in July 2009. A link to this was provided to
you in the original response, but I can confirm that in September 2009 a
revised version of the policy was published internally and the newer
version is in the process of being put onto our Scheme. However, in order
to assist, I have attached a copy of this revised policy - which makes
explicit reference to overt filming. I apologise for the oversight and
the fact that the updated version was not provided to you in your original
response. Please see attached.

The associated 'Evidential Images SOP', which has replaced the 'Overt
Filming SOP', was also introduced in July 2009 to coincide with the
internal publication of the new Policy.

Therefore, I can confirm that the revised policy referred to in the MPA
Briefing Paper 30/2009, from October 2009, relates to the revised 'Visual
Evidence Policy', which is attached, and associated SOP discussed above -
the quote taken is from the SOP itself. The Paper makes reference to the
fact that the publication of the new policy concerning overt filming and
photography was delayed, and further minor adjustments were made. This
process has been discussed above.

With regards to the original response issued to you, therefore, I have
decided to uphold the original decision in so much as the revised policy
has been provided to you and the associated SOP is exempt by virtue of
Section 22 - Information Intended for Future Publication, for the reasons
outlined in the original response.

I hope that this response clarifies matters, and that you are now clear
about the Policy and SOP that the MPS refers to in relation to overt
filming and photography. If you have any queries, or would like to
discuss this matter with me further, please feel free to contact me on the
number below. I will be happy to assist in any way I can.

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 enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 161 3527 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Shannon Aldridge
Quality and Assurance Advisor

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 and addressed to:

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

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 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 Mr Sands,

Having discussed this with the appropriate department, I have been
informed that there has been a continued delay with the publication of
the Evidential Images SOP which concerns Overt Filming. I apologise for
this, and any inconvenience it may have caused you.

Considering this fact, I have been informed that the department are
looking to provide you with a redacted version of the SOP by the 19th
July 2010. Are you happy for us to proceed in this manner?

Kind regards,

Shannon Aldridge
FOIA Q&A Advisor

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Sands,

In relation to the delay, I can confirm that there have been resourcing
issues within the department responsible for redacting the specified
documents.

However, I believe the section 22 exemption was correctly applied with
regard to your case. Section 22 states that 'information is exempt if
the information is held by the public authority with a view to its
publication...at some future date (whether determined or not)'. In
relation to the SOP concerning Overt Filming, there was an intention to
publish, and my belief was that such publication was imminent. As
timing is one issue to be considered when trying to balance whether or
not to disclose the requested information at the time of the request, I
believed it appropriate to cite the exemption. Subsequently, the
unforeseen delay has impacted upon the balance of the public interest
test - which is why the MPS has now offered to provide you with a
redacted version of the SOP relating to overt filming. I am in contact
with the department, and aim to have this information to you by the 19th
July.

I hope this has been of some assistance.

Kind regards,

Shannon Aldridge
FOIA Q&A Advisor

show quoted sections

Dear Mr. Sands

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010010004254

Further to our correspondence, I am now able to provide a response to your
query concerning the application of section 22 in relation to the Overt
Filming extract of the Evidential Images SOP.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has today decided to provide you
with the relevant extract from the Standard Operating Procedure which
covers Overt Filming. Please find the relevant extract below.

After further consideration, it has been decided that this extract from
the SOP can be provided to you in full and does not require any
redactions.

However, a name and telephone number have been redacted from the attached
powerpoint presentation under section 40(2). This is because information
that would identify or could assist to the identification of individuals
may be exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 40(2) of the Act.

In order for the exemption provided under Section 40(2) to be engaged
disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first or
second condition as defined by subsections 3 and 4. The relevant
condition in this instance is the first condition. This applies where a
principle of the Data Protection Act would be breached if the information
was to be disclosed. The relevant principle is "fair and lawful
processing".

To determine whether disclosure of these names would be fair I have
considered the Information Commissioner's guidance on this matter which
can be found at the following link:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

This guidance asks "Should the individual expect their role to be subject
to public scrutiny?" It goes on to state the factors for consideration
are 1) the seniority of the individual, 2) whether they have a public
profile and, 3) whether their role requires a significant level of
personal judgement and individual responsibility.

In respect of disclosure of MPS employees' names, the seniority of the
individual is the most significant factor in determining whether
disclosure would be "fair". I have decided that officers of the rank of
Chief Inspector or above (and their police staff equivalent) are of a
sufficient level to expect public disclosure of their names. Therefore I
have decided not to disclose the name of a lower level MPS employee in
this instance.

I have applied the exemption provided under Section 40(2) of the Freedom
of Information Act to this information as the first condition, defined in
subsection 3(a)(i) of Section 40 has been satisfied. Please see the legal
annex for the relevant extracts of the legislation which apply.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your patience with
regard to this request, and I hope the information is of use to you. I
apologise for any inconvenience the delay has caused.

Please note, in Appendix A the reference to the Overt Filming SOP refers
to the document extract pasted below.

Evidential Images SOP

Part 6 - Overt Filming

Introduction

This Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) supports the MPS Visual Evidence
Policy. Overt Filming is an effective police tactic used for the
prevention and detection of crime, the maintenance of public order and the
gathering of intelligence in support of such policing aims. Overt filming
includes the capture of both still and video images. It is a highly
visible police tactic and is conducted, where possible, with full public
awareness and consultation. It should not be confused with surveillance
or covert photography and does not involve the use of public space fixed
CCTV systems. Overt filming reassures the public that police are engaged
in dealing with local policing issues. Compliance with this SOP helps to
ensure that overt filming is appropriately carried out by trained and
authorised staff. Also that data [images] are processed, stored,
reviewed, retained and disposed of in accordance with the Guidance for the
Management of Police Information 2006 (MoPI) and the Data Protection Act
1998 (DPA).

Application

All police officers and police staff, including the extended police family
and those working voluntarily or under contract to the Metropolitan Police
Authority (MPA) must be aware of, and are required to comply with, all
relevant MPS policy and associated procedures.

However, this SOP applies to all operational officers, both uniform and
detective, their supervisors and in particular officers and staff in the
following roles:
" Borough Intelligence Managers and staff employed in Borough
Intelligence Units
" Staff employed at CO11 Public Order Branch
" Forward Intelligence and Evidence Gathering Teams
Note: This list is not intended to be exhaustive.

NB. This SOP does not apply to covert or surveillance filming/photography
and therefore the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
2000 (RIPA) do not apply.

This SOP applies with immediate effect.

SOP Details

Use of Overt Filming - Police Purpose

Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) confers a
right to private and family life. It is a qualified right and not an
absolute right and overt filming does not breach the Article 8 Right if
carried out in pursuance of a registered policing purpose.
In Wood v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2009 EWCA Civ 414 the
Court of Appeal made it clear that a common law right exists to take and
retain photographs. It must be remembered however that any 'intrusion'
(including the taking and retention of photographs) must be for a clearly
defined policing purpose(s) and be necessary and proportionate to the
circumstances.

Overt filming must be used for a policing purpose in accordance with MoPI
and the DPA. A policing purpose is defined as:
" Protecting life and property;
" Preserving order;
" Preventing the commission of offences;
" Bringing offenders to justice; and
" Any duty or responsibility arising from common or statute law.

Public Awareness of Overt Filming

It must be emphasised that overt filming is not similar to, or connected
with, filming or photography for covert or surveillance purposes. By
definition, 'overt' filming should be carried out in public. Reasonable
steps must be taken to ensure that the public generally, and individuals
who are specifically targeted and filmed, are made aware of the filming
and of the policing purpose being pursued. Despite being a useful police
tactic, overt filming can, if not used in an appropriate and proportionate
way, be viewed as intrusive, infringing an individual's Article 8 ECHR
Right to Private Life, and breach the DPA. Overt filming may also
increase tension between the police and the community. To ensure
compliance with the law (ECHR and DPA) authorising officers and those
engaged in overt filming should therefore ensure that filming is carried
out in an open and highly visible manner. Authorising officers MUST give
consideration to the following:
" Local press/media engagement informing the public that filming is
taking place and of the policing purpose;
" The use of high visibility MPS branded clothing;
" The use of marked police vehicles and signage that clearly
indicates they are equipped with and/or are using filming equipment; and
" Signage in prominent locations informing the public that overt
filming is taking place and of the policing purpose.

Authority to Carry Out Overt Filming

Form 850A must be used to record the authorisation, or refusal of
authorisation, to carry out overt filming.

All incidents of overt filming must be authorised by an officer of at
least the rank of Inspector. In urgent cases, where the necessary
authority cannot be obtained, the matter must be brought to the attention
of an Inspector as soon as practicable and Form 850A completed and signed.

Authorising officers must be satisfied that the use of overt filming in
the proposed circumstances is:
" For a legitimate policing purpose(s) and that the purpose is
recorded;
" Necessary and proportionate to the threat posed by the individual
or group to the public;
" Overt, i.e. all reasonable and practicable efforts have been made
to inform the public of the filming and policing purpose.
The authorising officer MUST consider whether any public consultation is
appropriate and if so with whom. Options include the use of the local
Community Police Consultative Group (CPCG), Borough Ward Panels or other
local community groups. Where filming is to centre around specific venues
(e.g. schools, colleges, clubs) contact should be made with staff at the
venues unless it is impractical to do so. Where the likely subjects of
overt filming are to be young people, particular sensitivity should be
shown regarding the impact of the tactic on the person and families
concerned. This should be discussed, where necessary, when granting
authority.

Authorising officers must ensure that police officers/staff engaged in
overt filming:
" Are aware of their responsibilities under this SOP, the ECHR and
the DPA regarding the provision of information whilst filming and the
review, retention, storage and disposal of footage (see below). A short
powerpoint presentation outlining these responsibilities is available
below.
Accountability and Management

Each Borough/Operational Command Unit (B/OCU) must have a system to ensure
that details of all authorisations for overt filming are made available to
the next daily Senior Management Team meeting. This allows the
opportunity for the authorisation or refusal to be discussed and amended
if necessary and provides local management with an opportunity to oversee
and manage the overt filming process. The Borough Liaison Officer should
be consulted where further information is required regarding the community
impact of filming in a particular location. The correct process for the
retention and storage of footage (see below) is the responsibility of the
B/OCU Intelligence Manager.

Provision of Information - Compliance with the DPA

It is a requirement of the first DPA Principle (fair processing) that the
following information is, so far as reasonably practicable, given or made
available to individuals at the time their image is captured:
" Identity of the data controller (The Commissioner of Police of
the Metropolis);
" The policing purposes for which images are captured
('processed');
" Any further information which is necessary, having regard to the
specific circumstances in which the data [photographs] are to be
processed, to enable processing in respect of the data subject to be
transparent and fair.
Where filming is carried out by police officers/staff who are clearly
identifiable as such there is no need to provide additional specific
information relating to the identity of the data controller.

Reasonable steps must always be taken to provide information as to the
purpose of the filming. Where signs have been displayed, or a local media
campaign has taken place, this may be sufficient where the filming is of a
general nature (e.g. outside a pub or in a shopping precinct). Where,
however, the filming is focused on an individual or group of individuals,
it will be necessary to provide the individual(s) concerned with the
information personally. This information may be provided verbally and/or
by way of written notice. Form 850B has been designed for this purpose
and should be used where practicable.

Recording of Notes/Details During Filming Process

An Overt Filming Proforma (Form 850C) has been designed to facilitate the
recording of original notes throughout the filming process. Where
specific individuals are filmed an original note or audio record should be
made as soon as possible. Completion of this form will ensure that
sufficient details are recorded for a subsequent CRIMINT + entry to be
created. Where Form 850C is not available the following details should be
recorded in an EAB:
" Details of camera operator, including name, pay/warrant number
and B/OCU;
" Equipment used;
" Date and time of overt filming;
" Event/Location of overt filming;
" The policing purpose for which overt filming took place;
" Where possible, full details of individuals filmed including
descriptions.
Review, Retention, Storage and Disposal of Footage

The DPA regulates the processing of 'personal data' or 'sensitive personal
data' whether processed on computer, CCTV, video camera or any other
media. Accordingly a recorded image that is aimed at identifying a
particular person or designed to gather intelligence about their
activities amounts to 'personal data' and is subject to the requirements
of the DPA. Due to the variation of equipment used across the MPS to
carry out overt filming it is not possible for this SOP to provide
specific procedures for the review, retention, storage and disposal of
footage. In order, however, to comply with the provisions of the DPA the
following minimum standards MUST be adhered to regardless of the type of
camera, processing or storage equipment used:
" Storage media containing film footage (tapes, discs, memory cards
etc) must be securely stored and must only be available to staff having an
'operational need' to access the material;
" Footage must be viewed as soon as practicable after filming. It
is important that during this first review, any recordings that are
clearly of no evidential or intelligence value are disposed of securely
(Wood v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2009 EWCA Civ 414).
" Footage considered to be of potential evidential value may be
retained as part of the prosecution case or other investigation. Footage
containing intelligence may be retained if this is justifiable, in
accordance with MoPI Guidance (s7 Review, Retention and Disposal) and the
MPS Management of Intelligence Policy.
" In accordance with MoPI, footage taken to record the character of
a public order event without targeted individuals, may be retained for a
period of up to 6 years. This is also consistent with the civil action
limitation period. Where significant criminal activity occurs, the
retention period is 50 years.
NB. See Appendix A for procedures relating to CO11 (1) Public Order
Branch.

CRIMINT + Entry

Where a decision has been made to retain footage a CRIMINT + entry must be
completed using the information recorded on Form 850C. The entry must
include the following information:
" Date, time and location where camera was used
" Names and specific roles of officers deployed (e.g. camera
operator, spotter etc).
" Details of any subjects, including names, dates of birth,
address, PNC ID number, EA Code and full description.
" Policing purpose for the retention of the image(s).
The purpose of this is to enable:
" The retrieval of images by name, PNC ID, EA Code, description,
time or location.
" The ongoing review of images for relevance, to determine whether
or not they should be retained.
" Monitoring for any disproportionate use.
" An audit trail to be maintained.
" DPA subject access requirements to be met.
" MoPI Section 7 Review, Retention and Disposal requirements to be
met.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Sands,

I note that the complete extract of the SOP and the end of my response to
you has not uploaded on to whatdotheyknow.com.

Please find the remainder below.

Kind regards,

Shannon Aldridge

Appendix A
CO11(1) Public Order Intelligence Unit (POIU) Retention of Photographs
This report should be read in conjunction with the Territorial Policing
Crime Strategic Committee Overt Filming Standard Operating Procedure.
This report outlines the CO11(1) (Public Order Branch) internal policy
relating to the review, retention, storage and disposal of images captured
at public order events.
For the purpose of this report CO11(1) are 'clients' of SCD4(3). Original
disks will be retained remotely by SCD4(3).

Transit and receipt of Image Disks
Images captured by SCD4(3) are in digital format and are supplied to
CO11(1) as a CDROM post event.
Disks are sent to CO11(1) via secure internal despatch or delivered by
hand by SCD4(3).
Upon receipt, CO11(1) will record each individual disk, the disk will then
be stored in a locked cabinet and access restricted to named personnel
only.
Initial Review of Image Disks
As soon as is practicable CO11 POIU staff will review the disks.
In Friedl -v- Austria, the European Court determined that Article 8 (Right
to Private Life) was not engaged, where the applicant was photographed,
while taking part in a street demonstration. The important factors were
that:
" The photographs were taken solely for the purpose of recording
the character of the demonstration.
" The individuals photographed remained anonymous in the sense that
no personal details were taken down.
" Photographs taken were not entered into the data processing
system.
If Article 8 is not engaged it is unlikely that information will amount to
personal data.
Where the police target and identify the subject of the photograph Article
8 (Right to Private Life) will be engaged and the police must justify the
taking and retention of the photograph for a policing purpose. For
example, the individual photographed (the subject) may have been involved
in a criminal offence. Where the subject's actions are not sufficient to
justify arrest and conviction but there is intelligence that the subject
is involved in the planning, preparation or instigation of an offence or
public disorder, this may justify the taking of photographs of the
subject.
Each image or set of images of an individual taken during an event will be
justified by the officer requesting it, by the officer taking it or both.
Each disc of images will then be reviewed by an intelligence officer from
CO11 and only images of those persons with current intelligence reports
will be retained by CO11. Intelligence images will not be added to any
corporate databases but will be held on a secure separate system in CO11.
Access to this system will only be given to intelligence officers working
for Public Order Branch and is strictly controlled.
The continuing retention of intelligence images taken at Public Order
events will generally have to be justified on the grounds that the
individual photographed (the subject) may have been involved in a criminal
offence(s). The actions of the subject may not be sufficient to justify
arrest and conviction however current intelligence may exist that the
subject is involved in the planning, preparation or instigation of public
disorder or at a public order event(s).
Each case must be judged on its own facts; the issue of proportionality is
always fact-sensitive. There may be cases where the degree of association
between the subject and a known offender is sufficiently strong, and/or
the potential offence that might be committed so serious (i.e. something
more serious than a low level public order offence) that retention of the
image is justified even if no offence has been committed at the time the
photographs were taken.
When the decision is taken to retain an image it will be removed from the
image disk digitally and placed onto a searchable electronic database.
Information relating to each image will be entered alongside the image:
" Date Taken
" Name
" Address
" Age
" Sex
" Colour
" Height
" Event / Event Date
" Policing Purpose
" Crimint Number
" Review Date (1 year from receipt)
Following the conclusion of all intelligence / evidential operations
relating to the event, the hard disk will be destroyed by CO11(1).
In all instances, Custody Images are preferred to Intelligence Images.
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 enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference
number above.
Yours sincerely

Shannon Aldridge
Quality and Assurance Advisor

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) 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 [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.
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