Universities that must co-operate with Special Branch Officers

Dear M. Bimmler

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010020001179
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 04/02/2010. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* "the Minister of State for Higher Education and Intellectual Property
(David Lammy) has made a statement to the BBC's Radio 4 on the fact
that certain universities will be required to work closely with
Special Branch and other police officers to prevent Islamic extremism.
Mr Lammy declined to provide a list of the universities thus targeted.
(Source: http://news.bbc.co. uk/1/hi/education/8496066.stm)
* I should ask you, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to
release the list of universities targeted by this new scheme.
* I assume that this list is also held by the MPS, most probably in the
Counter Terrorism Command.
* I expect you to send me an acknowledgement of this request and a
response after 20 working days at the latest.
* I shall send identical requests to the Home Office and the Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills. "

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference
to a third party. In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to
achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and
given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your
right of complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me at the above e-mail address, quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Policy and Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think
the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your
request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is
to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your
decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues
and assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision
of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS
to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing 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 Bimmler

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010020001179
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 04/02/2010. I note you seek
access to the following information:

the Minister of State for Higher Education and Intellectual Property
(David Lammy) has made a statement to the BBC's Radio 4 on the fact that
certain universities will be required to work closely with Special Branch
and other police officers to prevent Islamic extremism.

Mr Lammy declined to provide a list of the universities thus

targeted. (Source: http://news.bbc.co. uk/1/hi/education/8496066.stm)

I should ask you, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to release
the list of universities targeted by this new scheme. I assume that this
list is also held by the MPS, most probably in the Counter Terrorism
Command.

I expect you to send me an acknowledgement of this request and a response
after 20 working days at the latest.

I shall send identical requests to the Home Office and the Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills.

Before I explain the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I
thought that it would be helpful to outline the parameters set out by the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for
information can be answered.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of access to
information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a
request must, if permitted, state under Section 1(a) of the Act, whether
it holds the requested information and, if held, then communicate that
information to the applicant under Section 1(b) of the Act.

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

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.

In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for
this particular request.

The MPS can Neither Confirm nor Deny which universities are on the list
(NCND) by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 24(2) *** National Security
Section 30(3) *** Investigations and proceedings conducted by public
authorities
Section 31(3) *** Law enforcement
Section 38(2) *** Health & Safety

Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption and consideration must be
given as to whether there is a public interest in neither confirming nor
denying the information exists is the appropriate response.
Sections 24, 31 and 38 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there
is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming
or nor that the information is held as well as carrying out a public
interest test.

Evidence of harm

To confirm or deny which universities are on a list that will be required
to work closely with Special Branch and other police officers to prevent
Islamic extremism, would enable those engaged in criminal or terrorist
activity to identify the focus of policing activity across the UK. By
indicating which universities have been allocated funding, would lead
members of the public to attempt to deduce that those areas within the
vicinity of the university, were more prone to violent extremism. This
would also increase 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.

By confirming or denying the universities on the list, would allow members
of the criminal fraternity to map across the country which universities
the police service has measures in place to counteract violent extremist
activity and where there is focused police activity. This would show the
criminals what the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the
police force are, allowing them to target specific areas of the UK to
conduct the recruitment of potential extremists. These people would be
aware that the police must have intelligence in those areas so they would
be able to avoid those areas and would move their operations to
universities that were not actively engaging in the prevention of
extremism.

This could displace extremist activity to universities not named on the
list, which would further drive clandestine university based extremism
below the Counter Terrorism policing radar. Operational activity,
especially covert, runs the risk of being seriously damaged and undermined
by any disclosure which potentially indicates priority operational areas.
Any information identifying the focus of anti-extremist 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.

The universities themselves might be uncomfortable to be named on a list
as it could affect their ability to recruit and retain students if the
public thought they were an establishment that could be frequented by
potentially radical extremists. By confirming or denying whether they are
on the list, would adversely affect there relationship with the Police
Service and damage their engagement with the service in reporting
suspicious student activity.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S24 *** The information
simply relates to national security and disclosure would not actually harm
it. The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and by
confirming which universities are on the list, would lead to a
better-informed public that can take steps to protect themselves

Factors against confirmation or denial for S24 *** By confirming or
denying which universities are on the list would render Security measures
less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future
operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and
increase the risk of harm to the public.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S30 *** Domestic extremism is
high-profile and national and the public are entitled to know how public
funds are spent. By confirming or denying which universities are on the
list would give the public satisfaction in knowing where domestic
extremism is being targeted by the Police Service.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S30 *** By confirming or
denying which universities are on the list, would hinder the prevention or
detection of crime and affect the force***s future investigative
capabilities. This would impact on police resources and more crime would
be committed, placing individuals at risk.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or
denying which universities are on the list, the public would see where
public funds are being spent and would be able to take steps to protect
themselves and their families, from domestic extremists. Better public
awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying
which universities are on the list, would compromise law enforcement
tactics which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More
crime would be committed and individuals would be placed at risk. The
disclosure would also undermine the partnership approach to law
enforcement which would put the police service***s working relationships
with significant partners at risk.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S38 *** By confirming or
denying which universities are on the list, would lead to better informed
public awareness and debate and the public are entitled to know what their
public funds are spent on.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S38 - By confirming or denying
which universities are on the list, would significantly increase the risks
to individuals and this would lead to a loss of confidence in the public
authority to protect the well-being of the community.

Balance test - The security of the country is of paramount importance and
the Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held
if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine
National Security. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency
of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the
police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat
posed by violent extremism, there is a very strong public interest in
safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police
investigations and operations in this highly sensitive area of terrorism
prevention.
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 therefore our opinion that
for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying which
universities are on the list, is not made out.

However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any
information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

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 2401 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

Gill Brown
Information Manager

Legal Annex

Section 24 National security

(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.

(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
exemption from section 1(1)(a) is required for the purpose of safeguarding
national security.

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public
interest test and provide evidence of harm.

30 Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities

(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information
which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt
information by virtue of subsection (1) or (2).

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public
interest test.

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,

(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice
any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public
interest test and provide evidence of harm.

38 Health and safety

(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act
would, or would be likely to***

(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or

(b) endanger the safety of any individual.

(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, have either
of the effects mentioned in subsection (1).

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 M. Bimmler,

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

Your Freedom of Information request has been allocated to a case worker.
I will ask her to update you on your request as soon as possible.

With kind regards,

R. Loizou

show quoted sections

Dear M Bimmler

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010030002465

I write in connection with your letter dated 10 March 2010 requesting that
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response dated 8 March
2010 to your request for information relating to:

* FOIA complaint on existing closed FOIA case 2010020001179..

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

Summary of Original Request:

..the Minister of State for Higher Education and Intellectual Property
(David Lammy) has made a statement to the BBC's Radio 4 on the fact that
certain universities will be required to work closely with Special Branch
and other police officers to prevent Islamic extremism... I should ask you
... to release the list of universities targeted by this new scheme.

Request for Review:

I would appreciate an internal review of your decision

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS's complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 9 April 2010.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Mike Lyng on telephone number 02071613605 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

Mike Lyng
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 Bimmler

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010030002465

Further to our e-mail of the 29/03/2010 I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time provided to you in relation to:
* FOIA Complaint pertaining to 2010020001179 .

I hope to complete your review no later than 30 April 2010. 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 on 0207 161 3605 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
Mike Lyng
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. Bimmler,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010030002465

Further to our letter of 29 March 2010, I am now able to provide a
response to your complaint dated 10 March 2010 concerning:

· FOIA complaint on existing closed FOIA case 2010020001179.

Summary of Original Request:

..the Minister of State for Higher Education and Intellectual Property
(David Lammy) has made a statement to the BBC's Radio 4 on the fact that
certain universities will be required to work closely with Special Branch
and other police officers to prevent Islamic extremism... I should ask you
... to release the list of universities targeted by this new scheme.

Request for Review:

I would appreciate an internal review of your decision

1. DECISION

1.1 The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and
has decided that incorrect procedure was followed in reaching our original
decision.

1.2 In accordance with The Code of Practice (Freedom Of Information Act
2000, section 45), I would like to advise you that this complaint process
provides a fair and thorough review of handling issues and of decisions
taken in pursuant to the Act, including decisions taken about where the
public interest lies in respect of exempt information. This enables a
fresh decision to be taken on a reconsideration of all the factors
relevant to the points you have raised.

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act that are referred
to in this letter.

2 Review decision in respect of the DELAY IN RESPONDING TO THIS REQUEST:

2.1 The statutory time limit for responding to a Freedom of Information
Act request is set out in Section 10(1) of the Act 2000 (the 'Act') which
states that a public authority must comply with section1(1) promptly and
in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date
of receipt.

Therefore, a public authority must inform the applicant in writing whether
it holds the information requested and if so, communicate that information
to the applicant, promptly, but not later than 20 working days after
receipt of the request. Similarly, when a request for information is being
refused, ICO guidance also states that the public authority must issue a
refusal notice to the requester within 20 working days following the date
of receipt of the request.

2.2 Your request for information was received by the MPS on the 4th
February 2010 and therefore a response should have been sent by the 4th
March 2010. The refusal notice was not sent by the MPS until 8th March
2010. I can confirm that in this instance a failure to respond to your
request within the time limit is a breach of section 10 of the Act.

The MPS is continually striving to ensure statutory deadlines are met and
enquiries are responded to as soon as possible. We are working towards
this goal whilst ensuring the operational policing needs of London are not
affected. As a result of your complaint, I have spoken to the department
concerned to ensure that they are aware that applicants should be
regularly updated in good time if there is a possibility their request
deadline will not be met for any reason.

The issues you have raised have been recorded and they will enable us to
provide a more efficient and effective service in the future.

3. Review decision in respect of MPS refusal notice regarding your
original request

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

Section 1 of the Act places two duties on public authorities. Unless
exemptions apply, the first duty at section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny
whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at
section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as
being held.

Where exemptions are relied upon section 17(1) of FOIA requires that we
provide the applicant with a notice which a) states that fact, b)
specifies the exemption(s) in question, and c) states (if that would not
otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

In response to your request, the MPS provided you with a section 17(1)
refusal notice which neither confirmed nor denied whether the MPS held the
requested information by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(2) National Security
Section 30(3) Investigations and Proceedings conducted by public
authority
Section 31(3) Law enforcement
Section 38(2) Health and Safety

3.2 I have reviewed the response provided to you and today decided to
uphold the MPS decision to neither confirm nor deny that the MPS holds the
requested information by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(2) National Security;
Section 30(3) Investigations and Proceedings conducted by public
authorities;
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement;
Section 38(2) Health and Safety.

The remainder of the present response therefore also serves as a refusal
notice under Section 17(1) of the Act and provides further details of the
considerations undertaken in reaching this decision. I do not intend to
repeat verbatim the evidence of harm and public interest previously
provided by the MPS, which the review found to be robust in this case, but
will instead expand upon a number of the salient points raised in the
original refusal notice.

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.

In order to fulfill the requirements of section 17(1), I will address each
of the cited exemptions in turn.

3.3 Section 24(2) National Security

This exemption is engaged because protection of the requested information
- if it were held - would be necessary for the purposes of safeguarding
national security. To explain this further, it is helpful to briefly
examine definitions of national security at this point. The National
Security Strategy underlines that our understanding of national security
has changed in recent years, broadening from a focus on simply the
protection of the state to include "threats to individual citizens and to
our way of life, as well as to the integrity and interests of the state."
The Strategy reiterates the existing threat from violent extremists
motivated by political and religious causes, in addition to animal rights
extremists and others. The Strategy reports that at any one time the
police and the security and intelligence agencies are contending with
around 30 plots and 200 groups or networks of this type. In this case,
the requested information clearly relates to this area, and it is
necessary to neither confirm nor deny that the requested information is
held.

Section 24 is a qualified, prejudice-based exemption and a public
authority is therefore required to provide you with a brief public
interest and harm test.

Evidence of harm in relation to Section 24 National Security

In this case, confirmation or denial that the requested information is
held would provide would-be criminals with intelligence which would assist
them in planning their activities; this would occur because to
consistently confirm or deny whether surveillance or monitoring takes
place in relation to a particular area or areas via an FOI disclosure
would prejudice the work of the MPS to counter threats to national
security as it would identify areas where police activity is or is not
focused. The maintenance of the MPS stance to neither confirm nor deny
(NCND) the existence of the requested information is therefore vital, as
it enables the MPS to efficiently and effectively employ or maintain
policing tactics to counter any such threats to national security.

Public Interest Test for Section 24(2) as to whether the MPS should
confirm or deny information is held

Public interest arguments in favour of confirming or denying whether the
requested information is held

Confirming or denying whether the requested information is held would
inform public debate about how public funds are spent. The subject area of
extremist activity is one of great concern to the public, and confirmation
or denial in this case would provide an accurate picture of any MPS
engagement in this area, allowing scrutiny of MPS actions and decisions
within their national security remit.

Public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exclusion of the
duty to confirm or deny

By confirming or denying the requested information would render security
measures less effective by revealing levels of MPS awareness of any
potential threats. Such a disclosure under the Act would mean that in
order to counter this prejudice the MPS would need to employ additional
resources to protect national security. In this case there is a strong
public interest in preserving the MPS ability to identify and disrupt any
such threats.

3.4 Section 30(3) Investigations and Proceedings conducted by public
authorities

Section 30(3) provides an exemption from the duty to confirm or deny in
relation to any information, which - if held - would fall within any of
the classes specified in sections 30(1) or 30(2). One of the core
functions of the Police Service is to conduct investigations, which
includes information held at any time for the purpose of any investigation
which the public authority has a duty to conduct. This exemption is
engaged because protection of the requested information - if held - would
be necessary for the purposes of preventing harm to any investigations and
proceedings conducted by a public authority in respect of extremist
activity.

Section 30 is a qualified, class-based exemption. This means that the
legislators have identified that prejudice would arise as a result of
disclosure. As the exemption is subject to the public interest test, a
public authority must consider whether the public interest in maintaining
the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest
in confirming or denying whether the requested information is held.

Public Interest Test for Section 30(3) as to whether the MPS should
confirm or deny information is held

Public interest arguments in favour of confirming or denying whether the
requested information is held

There is a general public interest in promoting transparency and
accountability in relation to the operation of public authorities.
Confirming or denying whether the requested information is held would lead
to accurate public debate about how and where domestic extremism is being
targeted by the Police Service and that it is discharging its powers
effectively and appropriately.

Public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exclusion of the
duty to confirm or deny

The public interest inherent in maintaining the exemption lies in
preserving the ability of public authorities to carry out any
investigation to which the information may relate and to decide whether
proceedings are necessary. It also protects the investigative process so
far as disclosure would result in a detriment to future investigations.
Confirming or denying the requested information would indicate whether
investigations have taken or are taking place in this area. This would
harm any current or future investigative capabilities and would ultimately
impact on MPS resources, by hampering its ability to carry out effective
investigations.

3.5 Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Section 30 provides an exemption for information held in connection with
particular criminal investigations and proceedings brought by public
authorities (as well as information about some confidential sources).
Section 31 provides an exemption where prejudice could be caused to
investigations generally and the wider steps taken in relation to law
enforcement.

Section 31(3) of the Act provides an exemption from the duty to confirm or
deny where to do so would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the
matters specified in section 31(1). This exemption is engaged because
protection of the requested information - if it were held - would be
necessary for the purposes of preventing harm to the areas of law
enforcement in the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension
or prosecution of offenders. In this case section 31(3) is applied in
conjunction with section 30(3) in order to further protect whether or not
specific investigations have taken or are taking place. To reveal such
intelligence would itself impact adversely on the ability of the MPS to
prevent and detect crime.

Section 31 is a qualified, prejudice-based exemption and a public
authority is therefore required to provide you with a brief public
interest and harm test.

Evidence of harm in relation to Section 31 Law Enforcement

The maintenance of the MPS stance to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) the
requested information is necessary because to confirm or deny that we hold
the information you have requested would be likely to prejudice the
ability of the MPS and other bodies with whom we work to prevent and
detect crime, apprehend and prosecute offenders.

Confirmation of the requested information would alert individuals who may
wish to cause harm by making them aware of whether their activities have
or have not been detected. Consequently, they may change tactics and
locations in order to evade further monitoring. This would have the
effect of displacing extremist activity to other locations. As a result
the MPS would have to divert further resources to combat such harm arising
out of this confirmation.

Public Interest Test for Section 31(3) as to whether the MPS should
confirm or deny information is held

Public interest arguments in favour of confirming or denying whether the
requested information is held

Confirming or denying whether the requested information is held, would
help ensure that the MPS is exercising its functions appropriately and
proportionately, that is, that people will not be unfairly subjected to
investigation. To confirm or deny that we hold information relating to
this request would show the public the extent of law enforcement
activities conducted by the MPS. It may lead to accurate public debate
and better public awareness which, in turn, may reduce crime or lead to
information from the public. Finally, it would also help ensure that
public funds are being appropriately applied by ensuring that law
enforcement functions are being effectively and efficiently run and
ensuring value for money is being obtained.

Public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exclusion of the
duty to confirm or deny

Confirming or denying the requested information may provide invaluable
intelligence information to those with criminal intentions. As mentioned
in the MPS initial response, the disclosure would also undermine the
partnership approach to law enforcement which put the police service's
working relationships with significant partners at risk. The MPS is of the
view that to confirm or deny in this case, would cause prejudice to any
current or future enquiries.

3.6 Section 38(2) Health and Safety

Section 38 provides an exemption from disclosing information if such
disclosure would endanger any individual. In particular the section
provides that information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would,
or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any
individual, or endanger the safety of any individual. This exemption is
engaged because the consequences of any failure to disrupt criminal
activities in this area increases the risk to the personal safety of
individuals. The MPS consider the likelihood of endangerment would be
sufficiently real or significant. In other words, even confirming or
denying that the requested information was held may endanger public
safety.

Section 38 is a qualified, prejudice-based exemption and a public
authority is therefore required to provide you with a brief public
interest and harm test.

Evidence of harm in relation to Section 38 Health & Safety

The maintenance of the MPS stance to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) the
existence of the requested information is necessary because to confirm or
deny that we hold the information you have requested would be likely to
increase the potential for harm to individuals. The reasons for this have
already been outlined above. Previous ICO decision notices have made
mention of the fact that in order for the MPS to conclude that
endangerment is likely the possibility of this must be real and
significant and more than hypothetical or remote. The MPS believe that to
confirm or deny that the requested information is held would lead to the
prejudice articulated for Section 24(2), Section 30(3) and Section 31(3).
These consequences would set in motion a chain of events, the harm of
which is linked to law enforcement and the endangerment of health and
safety to individuals.

Public Interest Test for Section 38(2) as to whether the MPS should
confirm or deny information is held

Public interest arguments in favour of confirming or denying whether the
requested information is held

To confirm or deny the requested information is held allows evaluation of
the MPS efforts to ensure that the health and safety of the public is
protected and is of paramount importance. It would assist in furthering
the understanding and participation in the public debate of issues of
importance and promote accountability and transparency by public
authorities for decisions taken by them.

Public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exclusion of the
duty to confirm or deny

Confirming or denying that the requested information is held would alert
those engaged or intent on criminal behaviour to levels of police activity
and consequently increase the risk of harm to the public. As mentioned in
the MPS initial response there would be a significant risk to individuals
and this would lead to a loss of confidence in the public authority to
protect the well-being of the community.

3.7 Balancing Test

The MPS believes that the increased likelihood of risk to the health and
safety of any individual is, in itself, a powerful public interest
argument against confirming or denying whether the requested information
is held, as is the increased likelihood that the criminal law would be
broken as an indirect consequence of the release of the requested
information. There is a limited public interest in the MPS confirming or
denying whether the requested information is held. The MPS believes that
this public interest in maintaining the exclusion from the duty to confirm
or deny outweighs the public interest in revealing whether information is
or is not held in order to maintain the ability of the Police Service to
carry out investigations and proceedings. As mentioned in the MPS initial
response, the security of the country is of paramount importance and the
Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if
to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine
National Security. After weighing up the competing interests I have
determined that the public interest to confirm or deny the requested
information is not made out in this case. The harm which could be caused
by doing so, as explained above, is significant.

I am aware this is not the response you wished to receive, but hope you
appreciate the reasons behind the MPS stance.

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 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

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 1 (General right of access to information held by public
authorities) 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.
(2) Where-
(a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
(i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
(ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
(b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.
(3) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of
section 2 applies must, either in the notice under subsection (1) or in a
separate notice given within such time as is reasonable in the
circumstances, state the reasons for claiming-
(a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in
maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the
public interest in disclosing whether the authority holds the information,
or
(b) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in
maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the
information.
(4) A public authority is not obliged to make a statement under subsection
(1)(c) or (3) if, or to the extent that, the statement would involve the
disclosure of information which would itself be exempt information.
(5) 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.
(6) Subsection (5) does not apply where-
(a) the public authority is relying on a claim that section 14 applies,
(b) the authority has given the applicant a notice, in relation to a
previous request for information, stating that it is relying on such a
claim, and
(c) it would in all the circumstances be unreasonable to expect the
authority to serve a further notice under subsection (5) in relation to
the current request.
(7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public authority
for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for information
or state that the authority does not provide such a procedure, and
(b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section 50.

Section 10 (Time for compliance with request ) of the Act provides:

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply
with section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth
working day following the date of receipt.
(2) Where the authority has given a fees notice to the applicant and the
fee is paid in accordance with section 9(2), the working days in the
period beginning with the day on which the fees notice is given to the
applicant and ending with the day on which the fee is received by the
authority are to be disregarded in calculating for the purposes of
subsection (1) the twentieth working day following the date of receipt.
(3) If, and to the extent that-
(a) section 1(1)(a) would not apply if the condition in section 2(1)(b)
were satisfied, or
(b) section 1(1)(b) would not apply if the condition in section 2(2)(b)
were satisfied,
the public authority need not comply with section 1(1)(a) or (b) until
such time as is reasonable in the circumstances; but this subsection does
not affect the time by which any notice under section 17(1) must be given.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that subsections (1)
and (2) are to have effect as if any reference to the twentieth working
day following the date of receipt were a reference to such other day, not
later than the sixtieth working day following the date of receipt, as may
be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may-
(a) prescribe different days in relation to different cases, and
(b) confer a discretion on the Commissioner.
(6) In this section-
"the date of receipt" means-
(a) the day on which the public authority receives the request for
information, or
(b) if later, the day on which it receives the information referred to in
section 1(3);
"working day" means any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday,
Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the
[1971 c. 80.] Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the
United Kingdom.

Section 17 (Refusal of request ) of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of Part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.
(2) Where-
(a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
(i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
(ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
(b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.
(3) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of
section 2 applies must, either in the notice under subsection (1) or in a
separate notice given within such time as is reasonable in the
circumstances, state the reasons for claiming-
(a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in
maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the
public interest in disclosing whether the authority holds the information,
or
(b) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in
maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the
information.
(4) A public authority is not obliged to make a statement under subsection
(1)(c) or (3) if, or to the extent that, the statement would involve the
disclosure of information which would itself be exempt information.
(5) 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.
(6) Subsection (5) does not apply where-
(a) the public authority is relying on a claim that section 14 applies,
(b) the authority has given the applicant a notice, in relation to a
previous request for information, stating that it is relying on such a
claim, and
(c) it would in all the circumstances be unreasonable to expect the
authority to serve a further notice under subsection (5) in relation to
the current request.
(7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public authority
for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for information
or state that the authority does not provide such a procedure, and
(b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section 50.

Section 24 (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.
(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
exemption from section 1(1)(a) is required for the purpose of safeguarding
national security.
(3) A certificate signed by a Minister of the Crown certifying that
exemption from section 1(1)(b), or from section 1(1)(a) and (b), is, or at
any time was, required for the purpose of safeguarding national security
shall, subject to section 60, be conclusive evidence of that fact.
(4) A certificate under subsection (3) may identify the information to
which it applies by means of a general description and may be expressed to
have prospective effect.

Section 30 (Investigations and Proceedings) of the Act provides:

(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has
at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct
with a view to it being ascertained-
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,
(b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the
circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute
criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct, or
(c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.
(2) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if-
(a) it was obtained or recorded by the authority for the purposes of its
functions relating to-
(i) investigations falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b),
(ii) criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct,
(iii) investigations (other than investigations falling within subsection
(1)(a) or (b)) which are conducted by the authority for any of the
purposes specified in section 31(2) and either by virtue of Her Majesty's
prerogative or by virtue of powers conferred by or under any enactment, or
(iv) civil proceedings which are brought by or on behalf of the authority
and arise out of such investigations, and
(b) it relates to the obtaining of information from confidential sources.
(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information
which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt
information by virtue of subsection (1) or (2).
(4) In relation to the institution or conduct of criminal proceedings or
the power to conduct them, references in subsection (1)(b) or (c) and
subsection (2)(a) to the public authority include references-
(a) to any officer of the authority,
(b) in the case of a government department other than a Northern Ireland
department, to the Minister of the Crown in charge of the department, and
(c) in the case of a Northern Ireland department, to the Northern Ireland
Minister in charge of the department.
(5) In this section-
"criminal proceedings" includes-
(a)
proceedings before a court-martial constituted under the Army Act 1955,
the [1955 c. 18.] Air[1955 c. 19.] Force Act 1955 or the [1957 c. 53.]
Naval Discipline Act 1957 or a disciplinary court constituted under
section 52G of the Act of 1957,
(b)
proceedings on dealing summarily with a charge under the Army Act 1955 or
the [1955 c. 18.] Air[1955 c. 19.] Force Act 1955 or on summary trial
under the [1957 c. 53.] Naval Discipline Act 1957,
(c)
proceedings before a court established by section 83ZA of the [1955 c.
18.] Army Act 1955, section 83ZA of the [1955 c. 19.] Air Force Act 1955
or section 52FF of the [1957 c. 53.] Naval Discipline Act 1957 (summary
appeal courts),
(d)
proceedings before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, and
(e)
proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court;
"offence" includes any offence under the [1955 c. 18.] Army Act
1955, the [1955 c. 19.] Air Force Act 1955 or the [1957 c. 53.] Naval
Discipline Act 1957.
(6) In the application of this section to Scotland-
(a) in subsection (1)(b), for the words from "a decision" to the end there
is substituted "a decision by the authority to make a report to the
procurator fiscal for the purpose of enabling him to determine whether
criminal proceedings should be instituted",
(b) in subsections (1)(c) and (2)(a)(ii) for "which the authority has
power to conduct" there is substituted "which have been instituted in
consequence of a report made by the authority to the procurator fiscal",
and
(c) for any reference to a person being charged with an offence there is
substituted a reference to the person being prosecuted for the offence.

Section 31 (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,
(d) the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition
of a similar nature,
(e) the operation of the immigration controls,
(f) the maintenance of security and good order in prisons or in other
institutions where persons are lawfully detained,
(g) the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the
purposes specified in subsection (2),
(h) any civil proceedings which are brought by or on behalf of a public
authority and arise out of an investigation conducted, for any of the
purposes specified in subsection (2), by or on behalf of the authority by
virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative or by virtue of powers conferred by or
under an enactment, or
(i) any inquiry held under the [1976 c. 14.] Fatal Accidents and Sudden
Deaths Inquiries (Scotland) Act 1976 to the extent that the inquiry arises
out of an investigation conducted, for any of the purposes specified in
subsection (2), by or on behalf of the authority by virtue of Her
Majesty's prerogative or by virtue of powers conferred by or under an
enactment.
(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(g) to (i) are-
(a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply
with the law,
(b) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any
conduct which is improper,
(c) the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify
regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,
(d) the purpose of ascertaining a person's fitness or competence in
relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any
profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised
to carry on,
(e) the purpose of ascertaining the cause of an accident,
(f) the purpose of protecting charities against misconduct or
mismanagement (whether by trustees or other persons) in their
administration,
(g) the purpose of protecting the property of charities from loss or
misapplication,
(h) the purpose of recovering the property of charities,
(i) the purpose of securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at
work, and
(j) the purpose of protecting persons other than persons at work against
risk to health or safety arising out of or in connection with the actions
of persons at work.
(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice
any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

Section 38 (Health and Safety) of the Act provides:

(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act
would, or would be likely to-
(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b) endanger the safety of any individual.
(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, have either
of the effects mentioned in subsection (1).

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

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 Bimmler,

Please find attached an updated MPS response in respect of your complaint
lodged with the Information Commissioner's Office.

Regards

Nigel Shankster

<<MPS reply to Mr Bimmler.doc>>

Nigel Shankster | Higher Information Access Manager, FOIA Quality
Assurance and Publication Scheme Coordinator| Public Access Office |
Security Standards & Architecture | Directorate of Information |
Metropolitan Police Service

Telephone 020 7161 3649 | Fax 020 7161 3501 | Email
[email address]
Address 20th Floor, PO Box 57192, London, SW6 1SF

Protective Marking: Not Protectively Marked
Not / Suitable for Publication: N

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

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

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The MPS has a
strict staff conduct policy. Any email that causes you concern should be
reported to [1][email address].

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]