Section 60 authorisation for Wandsworth on 3/12/09

Dear Mr. Scrace

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009120001180
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/12/2009. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* "I would like to request the following:
* 1. The written authorisation for section 60 stop and search powers
covering the Wandsworth area in effect on the evening of the 3rd of
December 2009.
* 2. Any and all documents pertaining to the decision to grant this
authorisation. "

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 Rozmarie Loizou at the above e-mail address, quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Rozmarie Loizou
Administrative 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. Scrace,

Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your request.

Your Freedom of Information request has been allocated to a case worker
who will then provide the MPS response to your request.

I will ask her to update you on your request as soon as possible.
Apologies for the inconvenience caused.

With kind regards,

Rozmarie.

show quoted sections

Dear Thomas Scrace

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009120001180

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/12/2009. Firstly, may I
apologise for the delay in replying to you. I hope the delay has not
caused you any inconvenience. I note you seek access to the following
information:

1. The written authorisation for section 60 stop and search powers
covering the Wandsworth area in effect on the evening of the 3rd of
December 2009.

2. Any and all documents pertaining to the decision to grant this
authorisation.

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at Wandsworth Borough.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located records relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to:

Question 1 : confirm the authorisation, however, exempt the written
authorisation under 31 Law Enforcement

Question 2: Exempt the information under sec 31 Law Enforcement

REASON FOR DECISION

In relation to Question 1 The written authorisation for section 60 stop
and search powers covering the Wandsworth area in effect on the evening of
the 3rd of December 2009.

For the evening of the 3rd December 2009 the MPS can confirm a Section 60
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) 1994 authorisation was in
place covering the Wandsworth area.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, Codes of Practice
states:

The Codes have been issued by the Home Secretary under the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and have been approved by Parliament. They deal
with contacts between the police and public in the exercise of police
powers.. including stop and search. The Codes regulate police powers and
procedures in the investigation of crime and set down safeguards and
protections for members of the public. The Codes provide a clear statement
of the rights of the individual and the powers of the police.

Code A:

Searches authorised under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994

2.12 Authority for a constable in uniform to stop and search under section
60 of the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 may be given if the authorising
officer
reasonably believes:

(a) that incidents involving serious violence may take place in any
locality in the
officer's police area, and it is expedient to use these powers to prevent
their
occurrence, or

(b) that persons are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons
without
good reason in any locality in the officer's police area.

2.13 An authorisation under section 60 may only be given by an officer of
the rank of
inspector or above, in writing, specifying the grounds on which it was
given, the
locality in which the powers may be exercised and the period of time for
which they
are in force. The period authorised shall be no longer than appears
reasonably
necessary to prevent, or seek to prevent incidents of serious violence, or
to deal with
the problem of carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons. It may
not
exceed 24 hours. [See Notes 10-13]

2.14 If an inspector gives an authorisation, he or she must, as soon as
practicable, inform
an officer of or above the rank of superintendent. This officer may direct
that the
authorisation shall be extended for a further 24 hours, if violence or the
carrying of
dangerous instruments or offensive weapons has occurred, or is suspected
to have
occurred, and the continued use of the powers is considered necessary to
prevent or
deal with further such activity. That direction must also be given in
writing at the time
or as soon as practicable afterwards. [See Note 12]

Note 10 The powers under section 60 are separate from and additional to
the normal stop and search powers which require reasonable grounds to
suspect an individual of carrying an offensive weapon (or other article).
Their overall purpose is to prevent serious violence and the widespread
carrying of weapons which might lead to persons being seriously injured by
disarming potential offenders in circumstances where other
powers would not be sufficient. They should not therefore be used to
replace or
circumvent the normal powers for dealing with routine crime problems. The
purpose
of the powers under section 60AA is to prevent those involved in
intimidatory or
violent protests using face coverings to disguise identity.

Note 11 Authorisations under section 60 require a reasonable belief on the
part of the
authorising officer. This must have an objective basis, for example:
intelligence or
relevant information such as a history of antagonism and violence between
particular
groups; previous incidents of violence at, or connected with, particular
events or
locations; a significant increase in knife-point robberies in a limited
area; reports that
individuals are regularly carrying weapons in a particular locality; or in
the case of
section 60AA previous incidents of crimes being committed while wearing
face
coverings to conceal identity.

Note 12 It is for the authorising officer to determine the period of time
during which the powers mentioned in paragraph 2.1 (b) and (c) may be
exercised. The officer should set the minimum period he or she considers
necessary to deal with the risk of violence, the
carrying of knives or offensive weapons, or terrorism. A direction to
extend the period
authorised under the powers mentioned in paragraph 2.1(b) may be given
only once.
Thereafter further use of the powers requires a new authorisation. There
is no
provision to extend an authorisation of the powers mentioned in paragraph
2.1(c);
further use of the powers requires a new authorisation.

Note13 It is for the authorising officer to determine the geographical
area in which the use of the powers is to be authorised. In doing so the
officer may wish to take into account factors such as the nature and venue
of the anticipated incident, the number of
people who may be in the immediate area of any possible incident, their
access to
surrounding areas and the anticipated level of violence. The officer
should not set a
geographical area which is wider than that he or she believes necessary
for the
purpose of preventing anticipated violence, the carrying of knives or
offensive
weapons, acts of terrorism, or, in the case of section 60AA, the
prevention of
commission of offences. It is particularly important to ensure that
constables
exercising such powers are fully aware of where they may be used. If the
area
specified is smaller than the whole force area, the officer giving the
authorisation
should specify either the streets which form the boundary of the area or a
divisional
boundary within the force area. If the power is to be used in response to
a threat or
incident that straddles police force areas, an officer from each of the
forces
concerned will need to give an authorisation.

In relation to the written authorisation (question 1 in part) and Question
2 Any and all documents pertaining to the decision to grant this
authorisation.

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.

Sec 31 - Law Enforcement

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

I have engaged Sec 31(1) (a) and (b) which I consider are relevant to this
request. As this section is a qualified exemption I am therefore required
to consider the public interest test.

Public Interest Test

The public interest lies at the heart of the Freedom of Information Act.
Section 1 of the Act sets out the following two rights of individuals
making a request for information to a public authority, namely:

* The right to be informed whether or not the information requested is
held by the public authority, and, if so,

* The right to have that information communicated to them

The Information Commissioner's Guidance No.3 confirms that when a public
authority is applying the public interest test, consideration should be
given first to whether it is right to confirm or deny the existence of
information and second to whether that information should be supplied.

The Guidance further states, the public interest test only needs to be
considered where there is an exemption and that exemption is 'Qualified'.
These are cases where a public authority, having identified a possible
exemption, must consider whether the public interest in maintaining the
exemption is greater than that in confirming or denying the existence of
the information requested and providing the information to the applicant.

Some of these exemptions are class based and some prejudice based. Class
exemptions are designed to give protection to all information falling
within a particular category, for instance, information subject to legal
professional privilege. Prejudice-based exemptions only come into force
if a particular disclosure would prejudice the purpose of the exemption,
for instance prejudice to international relations.

In effect something 'in the public interest' is simply something which
serves the interests of the public. When applying the test, the public
authority is simply deciding whether in any particular case it serves the
interests of the public better to withhold or to disclose the information.

Evidence of Harm in relation to Sec 31 (1)(a) and (b)

The prevention of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built.
The police have a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those
responsible for committing crime and or those that plan to commit crime.
To provide information on the details of the objective basis on which the
authorisation was given could subsequently harm our policing purposes and
this would prejudice our ability to prevent and detect crime, apprehend
and prosecute offenders.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure:

Increased awareness of the decision to grant such authorisations may
assist members of the public to take action to avoid areas deemed at risk
of public disorder or other related incidents.

Where public funds are being spent in relation to the deployment of police
officers to areas deemed at risk of serious violence or that persons are
carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons there is a public
interest in accountability and justification. One of the underlying
principles of the Act is the need for authorities to be more open and
transparent. Transparency is one of the core principles of the Freedom of
Information Act, as the Act has created the right to know how a public
authority functions. By creating transparency it creates the forum for
public debate which is essential in a democratic society.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure:

Release of this information may compromise the current or future law
enforcement role of the Metropolitan Police Service. The functions of the
police service include the prevention and detection of crime and the
apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The impact of releasing this
information would enable those who would wish to carry out criminal
activities to make use of this tactical information.

I have attached significant weight to this consideration.

In addition, by providing this information may result in disorder
increasing in the future in areas surrounding the boundary of the
authorisation where groups consider police are not deployed. Consequently
resulting in more crime, which will have an impact on local policing
resources. Public safety will be compromised and individuals placed at
risk of becoming involved in any disorder around these surrounding
boundary areas.

Disclosure of the written authorisation may reveal information police had
regarding the risk of violence in a particular area and consequently put
the public at further harm.

PACE Code A, Note 10 states ..' The powers under section 60 *** their
overall purpose of this legislation is to prevent serious violence and the
widespread carrying of weapons which might lead to persons being seriously
injured by disarming potential offenders in circumstances where other
powers would not be sufficient.' Disclosure would therefore identify the
information available to the authorising officer at the time and
consequently future law enforcement tactics would be compromised.

Balancing Test

As stated above, the exercise by police officers of statutory powers of
stop and search is defined clearly within legislation. Authorisations
under section 60 CJPOA may only be given by an officer of the rank of
Inspector or above. If an Inspector gives an authorisation, he or she
must, as soon as practicable, inform an officer of or above the rank of
Superintendent.

On weighing up the competing interests, I find the strongest consideration
favouring disclosure is accountability. I find the strongest consideration
favouring non-disclosure is the efficient and effective conduct of the
service to carry out law enforcement functions and ensure public safety.
I believe the reason to withhold the requested information is a more
robust argument than the reason to disclose. I base this decision on the
fact that the public interest is not what interests the public, but is
what would be of greater benefit if released, to the community as a whole.

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 02071613605 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
Quality and Assurance Advisor

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