Dear Sir or Madam,

This request is being made pursuant to my 23 November 2008 request
for the structure and contents of the database of Section 44
Terrorism Act authorisations, which was partly answered on 14 May
2009, providing me with descriptions of the 12 fields within the
database.

Please may I further have the precise names, definitions and data
types of each column -- preferably in their raw database SQL table
definition.

Please may I also have a single specimen record from this database,
of your choosing, that has no operational significance. You may
vary the facts in it if necessary.

Please may I also have a complete list of:

* the durations of each request,

* whether it is a renewal,

* the time it took for it to be confirmed by the Home Office (if it
was confirmed).

broken down by each year since 2000 when the Act was passed.

I am satisfied that the disclosure of the above information --
which lacks any geographical information, and has only very rough
temporal information -- could possibly hypothetically pinpoint any
of the vulnerabilities as outlined in the refusal of my previous
request.

The reason for the detailed information about the database is in
order to determine whether any application of the time limit
exemption is valid, as I will be able to counter it with the
precise SQL commands necessary to compile these statistics in
seconds.

Yours faithfully,

Julian Todd

Dear Mr Todd

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009050004522
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/05/2009. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* "This request is being made pursuant to my 23 November 2008 request
for the structure and contents of the database of Section 44 Terrorism
Act authorisations, which was partly answered on 14 May 2009,
providing me with descriptions of the 12 fields within the database."
* " Please may I further have the precise names, definitions and data
types of each column -- preferably in their raw database SQL table
definition. "
* "Please may I also have a single specimen record from this database,
of your choosing, that has no operational significance. You may vary
the facts in it if necessary."
* " Please may I also have a complete list of: "
* "* the durations of each request, "
* "* whether it is a renewal, "
* "* the time it took for it to be confirmed by the Home Office (if it
was confirmed). broken down by each year since 2000 when the Act was
passed."
* "I am satisfied that the disclosure of the above information --which
lacks any geographical information, and has only very rough temporal
information -- could possibly hypothetically pinpoint any of the
vulnerabilities as outlined in the refusal of my previous request."

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 by email, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Katie London
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 Todd

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009050004522
I write in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/05/2009. I note
you seek access to the following information:

This request is being made pursuant to my 23 November 2008 request for the
structure and contents of the database of Section 44 Terrorism Act
authorisations, which was partly answered on 14 May 2009, providing me
with descriptions of the 12 fields within the database.

1. Please may I further have the precise names, definitions and
data types of each column -- preferably in their raw database SQL table
definition.

2. Please may I also have a single specimen record from this
database, of your choosing, that has no operational significance. You may
vary the facts in it if necessary.

3. Please may I also have a complete list of:
** the durations of each request, whether it is a renewal,
** the time it took for it to be confirmed by the Home Office (if
it was confirmed)
** .broken down by each year since 2000 when the Act was passed.
I am satisfied that the disclosure of the above information --which lacks
any geographical information, and has only very rough temporal information
-- could possibly hypothetically pinpoint any of the vulnerabilities as
outlined in the refusal of my previous request..

I am pleased to inform you I have enclosed a screen print of a blank
record from the database, as you requested.

The MPS received your new application for information on questions one,
two and three on the 20th May 2009. As your request correctly articulates
you submitted a previous application to the MPS on the 24th November 2008,
in which you sought "A full copy of the contents of this database". The
Metropolitan Police complied with your request and a final Notice was sent
on the 17th December 2008. The Notice told you we would not disclose the
information you sought from our database. It clearly set out the
appropriate exemptions and explained the public interest for and against
disclosure. When balancing the two competing interests the MPS decided it
was not in the public interest to release this information. Following your
request for an internal review, the MPS revisited the original Notice and
decided to disclose the subject matter field names of the database, but
maintained a decision not to disclose any further requested information.

Apart from the blank screen print referred to above, there is nothing
different that we are able to send you in response to this request and the
same exemptions will apply. I have copied the original comments for ease
of reference.

The information you have requested is available the sites detailed below.
The first of which links to the Home Office Circular dated August 2006
and the second which links direct to a copy of Annex A to the above quoted
document which details the forms and guidance that you seek in the first
part of your request.

In addition there are many references in the Ministry of Justice
Statistical Bulletins about arrests for Recorded Crime and these include
the Terrorism Act 2000.

http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/HO/ci...

http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/HO/ci...

With regard to providing details of the contents of the database, 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 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

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.

The details contained within the database would be exempt from disclosure
as the following exemptions would apply:

Section 23 (2) Information relating to the security bodies
Section 24 (1) National Security
Section 31(1) Law enforcement

Section 23 of the Act is an absolute exemption, which provides that
information which was directly or indirectly supplied to the Metropolitan
Police Service by, or relates to, a body dealing with security matters
then that information is exempt.

Sections 24 (1) is a qualified exemption which mean that information is
exempt if exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national
security and if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the
national security. Section 31 (1) provides that information is exempt if
the disclosure of that information would prejudice the prevention or
detection of crime.

In considering the public interest factors in relation to the disclosure
of this information, the MPS acknowledge there is a general public
interest in the openness and accountability of the police service and the
current threat by terrorist organisations to individual communities.
However, this must be balanced by the fact that as a public authority we
may need to also consider withholding this information in order to protect
law enforcement and national security issues. Section 44 of the Terrorism
Act 2000 is an important tool in the on going fight against terrorism, and
to reveal details about the geographic areas where such authorisations are
in place would limit the effectiveness of these powers as a counter
terrorism measure.

This would have the likelihood of identifying location-specific
operations, enabling individuals to become aware of whether their
activities have been detected, which would ultimately compromise police
tactics, operations and future prosecutions. Any information identifying
the focus of anti-terror policing activity could be used to the advantage
of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the
operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public
safety and have a negative impact on both National Security and law
enforcement.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is
appropriate and balanced in matters of national security this will only be
overridden in exceptional circumstances. It is our opinion that for these
issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.

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 Gill Brown on telephone number 0207 230 4657 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Gill Brown
Information 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 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 Sir or Madam,

Please review my FOI request I made on 20 May 2009 for the list of
durations of each Section 44 Terrorism Act request, whether it was
a renewal, and whether the Home Secretary confirmed it broken down
by each year since 2000, which was refused on 22 June 2009.

I believe I reacted in full to the reasons provided in the refusal
notice to my 24 November 2008 request for the entire contents of
the database, where it was alleged that the information would
"reveal details about the geographical areas where authorisations
are in place would limit the effect of these powers as a counter
terrorism measure".

As you can see, the information I requested is not for any
geographical information whatsoever. Therefore, the reasoning in
the refusal notice cannot apply.

The public statistical information that is generally available (and
linked to in the response) concerns the stop and search events and
guidance. I am requesting the easily accessible statistical
information (from your database) about the quantities of
authorisations, which pretty much goes unreported.

Yours sincerely,

Julian Todd

Dear Mr. Todd

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009060006411

I write in connection with your letter dated requesting that the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response dated 22nd June 2009
response date] to your request for information relating to:

* FOIA Complaint pertaining existing closed case (2009050004522) on
Summary durations of Section 44 Terrorism Act authorisations..

I have identified the issues raised in your letter as follows:

* The request was refused on the ground that it would reveal
geographical information whereas you, the applicant, has not requested
any whatsoever.
* Information given in the response letter was on stop and search event
whereas you, the applicant, requested statistical information from the
Metropolitan Police database about the quantities of authorisations.

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS' complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by Monday 20th
July 2009.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact PAO on telephone number 020 7161 3607 or at the address at the top
of the letter quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

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 Todd

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009060006411

Further to our letter of 26 June 2009, I have unfortunately been unable to
meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

* FOI Complaint case number 2009050004522

I hope to complete your review no later than 4 August 2009. Should there
be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as
possible.

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

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
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 Todd

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009060006411

Further to our letter of 20 July 2009 , I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

* FOI original case number: 2009050004522

I hope to complete your review no later than 18 August 2009. Should there
be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as
possible.

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

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
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 Todd

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009060006411

Further to our letter of 20 July 2009, I am now able to provide a response
to your complaint dated 22 June 2009 concerning:

* Original FOI case number 2009050004522

DECISION

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

* Vary the original decision

REASON FOR DECISION

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay of this
review, and thank you for your patience.

To complete this review, searches were conducted within the SO15 Counter
Terrorism Command.

Your original FOIA request was concerned with the provisions of the
descriptions of the 12 fields within the Section 44 Terrorism Act
authorisations database.

Your letter of complaint specifically requests a review of your request
for:

* the provision of a complete list of the durations of each request,
* whether it is a renewal, and
* the time it took for it to be confirmed by the Home Office (if it was
confirmed) broken down by each year since 2000 when the Act was
passed.

I can confirm the answer to your questions are held by the MPS.

To answer your request, a member of staff would need to manually look into
each manual application record to be able to provide the answer to each of
the above questions. We have calculated it would take a minimum of
approximately 33 hours to comply with this section of your request. It
would be necessary to manually search through each individual file to list
the exact duration of each request, to check whether any are overlapping
applications (renewals) and to check the exact time it took for it to be
confirmed by the Home Office (if it was confirmed).

It is therefore appropriate to confirm that Section 12 of the Act applies
to the questions above in terms of answering the question within the remit
of the Freedom of Information Act.

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

Section 12(1) (Exemption where the cost of complying exceeds the
appropriate limit) of the Act provides:
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.

I add at this point that any captured information which could be extracted
and located within the 18 hour cost threshold is likely to be exempt from
disclosure by virtue of the following exemptions:

* Section 23(1) - (Information relating to or supplied by security
bodies),
* Section 24(1) - (National Security) and,
* Section 31 - (Law Enforcement)

Section 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing
with security matters ) of the Act provides:
(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it was
directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to,
any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).

Section 23 is a class-based and absolute exemption. I am therefore not
required to provide you with a harm test or public interest test for the
use of this exemption.
Section 24(1) (National Security ) of the Act provides:
(1) Information which does not fall within section 23(1) is exempt
information if exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required for the purpose
of safeguarding national security.

Section 24 is a prejudice-based and qualified exemption. I am therefore
required to provide prejudice which could occur following the disclosure
of the requested information. I am also required to provide you with a
Public Interest Test.

Prejudice Tests for the application of Section 24(1)
The information you have requested relates to national security and the
possible detection of those linked to 'terrorism' and related crimes. The
information you have requested therefore in itself relates directly to the
protection of national security. Non-disclosure of the information you
have requested is required for the purpose of safeguarding national
security as there is the possibility that disclosure could give rise to
the direct or indirect damage to national security.

Providing the content of information entered into specific fields may not
in itself prove or appear a harmful risk to national security. However to
provide the a yearly broken down list of the duration of each request and
details about whether they may be a overlapping application/'renewal' as
well as details regarding Home Office confirmation, may still enable those
with criminal intent to try and geographically map where there could
possibly be operational weaknesses or gaps between different forces use of
Section 44 applications. The information in total would certainly have the
effect of providing intelligence into the public domain which could harm
national security.
In reality, perceived police service 'gaps' in terms of the use of s44
applications may not indicate operational vulnerabilities in any way.
However, those with less of a policing understanding of the use of Section
44 authorisations by police forces could still try to use the mapped
information to gain an advantage over UK police services. I maintain this
argument remains the same whether we confirm which police service had has
an application authorised or not. Over time and with information already
in the public domain, the requested information would enable those with
criminal intent to try and build a map of perceived 'sensitive' possible
areas to commit acts of terrorism.

Public Interest Test on the use of Section 24(1)

Considerations favouring disclosure
Accountability
The information requested relates directly to the efficiency and
effectiveness of the MPS and other UK forces. As the purpose of the Act is
to make public authorities more accountable and transparent, providing the
requested information may detail how the MPS and other forces fulfil their
role and function in terms of submissions of Section 44 applications and
authorisations. The public has an interest in knowing how many Section 44
applications are submitted and locations where forces find the need to
invoke Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 as a tool in the ongoing fight
against terrorism.
Public Awareness and Debate
Disclosure of the particular contents of the database may assist
individuals by furthering understanding of and raising awareness of the
use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is due to the high
profile nature of the policing tool and as it is the public who whose
lives are affected by it. To provide the particular database content would
contribute to accurate debate about how valuable the use of the Section 44
of the Terrorism Act 2000 is. Disclosure could go some way to correct
rumour and speculation in regards to media conjecture that the police
overuse Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 unsuitably at times.

Considerations Favouring Non-disclosure
Efficient and Effective conduct of the Service
The current and future law enforcement role of the service would be
compromised by the release of the information you have requested.
Provision of details within the database would have a negative impact in
terms of our use of the Section 44 power as a tool to combat terrorism.
It would do so as it would enable authorisation details to be monitored
nationally which would provide intelligence to those with criminal intent.
Providing an advantage over the MPS and other forces to those who may wish
to commit crimes through terrorism, would not be in the public interest.

Balance Test
The strongest factor favouring disclosure is accountability. The strongest
factor favouring non-disclosure is maintaining the efficient and effective
conduct of the MPS and other forces. On weighing up the competing
interests I find the public interest in non disclosure outweighs the
public interest in disclosure I base this decision on the understanding
that the public interest is not what is of interest to the public, but
what would be of greater good for the community, should the information be
released.

Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) (Law enforcement ) of the Act provides:
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice-
(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c) the administration of justice,
Sections 31 is a prejudice-based and qualified exemption. I am therefore
required to provide you with a harm test and public interest test for the
use of these exemptions.

Prejudice Test for the use of Section 31(1)

The prejudice test provided for Section 24(1) adequately also explains the
harm to law enforcement should the information you request be released.
The main concern as explained is that the information over time and with
information already in the public domain, the requested information would
enable those with criminal intent to try and build a map of perceived
'sensitive' possible areas to commit acts of terrorism, even if we do not
list which specific police service relates to which application.

The information could be used to try and pin point areas where possible
terrorist activity appears less likely to take place or be detected. These
mapped areas of perceived 'intelligence' are then likely to become a
hotspot for criminal activity, even if the intelligence they base their
decision on is flawed. This is likely to lead to a further depletion and
allocation of additional policing resources and measures to try and
prevent and detect crime as well as ensure justice is administered. Such
an outcome due to a Freedom of Information disclosure would not be in the
public interest.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an important tool in the ongoing
fight against terrorism, and to reveal details about applications under
the Act which in turn would reveal intelligence about the geographical
areas where such authorisations may be in place would limit the
effectiveness of these powers as a counter terrorism measure. Providing
details of where there may be overlapping applications for authorisations
would in turn provide geographical information regarding the use of the
Section 44 power as the data may be used to build a national picture of
which cities may be most under threat and in need of authorisations.

Public Interest Test

Considerations favouring Disclosure
Accountability
As the requested information related directly and indirectly to the
efficiency and effectiveness of the service, providing this information
into the public domain would show the MPS to be accountable.

Public Awareness and Debate
Disclosure would allow the public to gain insight and understanding into
the intricate administrative details regarding Section 44 authorisations.
This could in turn contribute to accurate debate considering the high
profile nature of the issue surrounding police use of the Section 44.

Considerations favouring Non-disclosure
Efficient and Effective conduct of the service
The current and future law enforcement role of the force would be
compromised by the release of the particular content of the database for
which you have requested. To reveal authorisation details would erode and
limit the effect of these powers as a counter terrorism measure, as it
would still allow the mapping of national information which could be
regarded as intelligence that can be used for criminal gains. Should
forces begin to not apply for Section 44 authorisations due to concern in
regards to FOI disclosures, this could have a detrimental effect on law
enforcement and the ability to use Section 44 as a legitimate and
effective tool to combat terrorism.

Release of the information would limit the effectiveness of the use of
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as knowledge of where the
authorisations were in place would be of considerable benefit to those
individuals attempting to avoid detection when planning to carry out an
act of terrorism.

Balance Test
The strongest reason favouring disclosure is public awareness. The
strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is maintaining the efficient and
effective conduct of the service. On weighing up the competing interests,
I find the public interest does lay in favour of non-disclosure of the
requested information.

I appreciate the outcomes of the Balance Tests is not the answer you would
have liked. However, I find that it is not in the public interest to
disclosure information that may compromise the service's ability to fulfil
its core function of law enforcement and its duty to protect national
security. I also reaffirm that I base my decision on the understanding
that the public interest is not what interests the public but what will be
of greater good, if released, to the community as a whole.

When applying Section 12 as a reason to exempt the provision of
information, we always look to see if we can refine or refocus a request
to see if information can be provided within the prescribed cost limit.
Unfortunately, due to the scope of your request and the operational
sensetivities that surround the information you require, there is no
further information I could provide which would satisfy your request.

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
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 Sir or Madam,

Thank you for the reply on 10 August from (S Strong) to my
complaint I made on 22 June about the handing of a 20 May request
for the list of durations of Section 44 Terrorism Act requests and
other operating statistics.

I would like confirmation that this 10 August reply in the name of
Strong (FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer) is the proper
and final reply, because the reasons for refusal are somewhat of a
mismatch for my request, and an earlier letter from Rozmarie Loizou
(Administrative Support Officer) on 26 June gave grounds for
optimism that my request was going to be handled properly.

Firstly, the Strong letter of 10 August stated that my request
would require a member of staff to manually look into each manual
application record in order to satisfy my request -- when it has
been disclosed that the information is in a database with the
relevant fields from which it would take minutes for a willing
person to compile information very close to satisfying my request.

Secondly, the Strong letter repeatedly states how, if the
information were disclosed, it may enable those with criminal
intent to try and geographically map the areas, when my request was
only for durations, renewals and confirmations -- nothing to do
with geographical locations. There cannot be any justification for
talking about maps.

Thirdly, the public interest test was improperly carried out
following this gross misrepresentation of how the information could
be re-used for, versus the public gaining an understanding of what
extent there is any statutory ministerial oversight for the
exercise of what were intended to be emergency powers that are
suspected to have become totally routine.

If this really was the letter I was supposed to get, including all
its erroneous mentions about mapping the information (which cannot
possibly happen), confirmation should be quick.

Thank you for your time.

Yours faithfully,

Julian Todd

Dear Mr Todd,

Thank you for your email.

Should you wish to make a complaint to the ICO in regards to your FOI Internal Review outcome sent on the 10th August 2009, please contact the Information Commissioner's Office at the following address:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45

Regards,

S. Strong

show quoted sections

ref: 2009100005899

Dear S. Strong,

Thank you for your letter of 28 May 2010 disclosing some of the
information I requested on 18 May 2009.

The response is almost but not quite satisfactory, but I am sure it
will be a small matter to fix it.

Your table of Section 44 authorisations contained the following
columns:
(a) data&time authorised,
(b) date&time run until,
(c) duration,
(d) force (always Metropolitan Police force),
(e) section (always s44(1)&(2)),
(f) date&time confirmed by Home Office,
(g) Home office response time

The data for all other police forces was exempted because this
would geographically pinpoint the time and place and allow
terrorists to spot patterns in police activity.

The entries in this table are more than what I asked for.

My information request would be satisfied by a table containing no
more than the following columns:
(a) the YEAR authorised,
(c) duration,
(g) Home Office response time,
(h) whether it was a renewal.

I believe this would pose no risk to any intelligence matters at
all as it will not be disclosed where in the country the
authorisations occurred and provide the dates only to the nearest
year.

The purpose of my request is to establish to what extent
ministerial oversight is exercised on this operational police
matter. These are the powers given to her by the Act of Parliament,
so it is of interest to know to what approximate extent they have
ever been applied.

I hope it will be a small matter to run an abbreviated database
query and fully satisfy my request.

Many regards,

Julian Todd.