Performance,
020 7035 4848
Assurance and
(switchboard)
Governance
Directorate
www.gov.uk
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Eveline Lubbers
request-546601-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
25 March 2019
Dear Ms Lubbers
Freedom of Information request (our ref. 52028): internal review
Thank you for your e-mail of 12 March 2019, in which you asked for an internal review of
our response to your Freedom of Information (FoI) request regarding the release of Home
Office files HO 376/154 and HO 376/155 concerning the Black Power Movement.
I have now completed the review. I have examined the response and I have considered
whether the correct procedures were followed and assessed the reasons behind the
response. I can confirm that I was not involved in the initial handling of your request.
Your request can be viewed at
Annex A and response is at
Annex B. The response
disclosed press clippings and withheld the remaining information under sections 23 and 24
(used in the alternative) (S23 - information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with
security matters, S24 – National Security), section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement), 27(1)
(international relations) and 40(2) (personal information) of the Act.
Your internal review request is at
Annex C, but the crux of your complaint is that you
disagreed with the response. You believe the information should be disclosed as you have
found evidence that it has been disclosed in the past.
I have now considered your complaint and have consulted with the responding unit. My
main finding is that the response provided to you was correct.
The Home Office acknowledges that it has previously disclosed some information from
these files. Prior to 2015 the Home Office released more information from these files. In
2015 the files were reviewed as part of the normal periodic process. During this process,
third party stakeholders were consulted. Following their consideration, it was decided that
due to ongoing sensitivities with the material it should be withheld from future release. As
such from that point the Home Office has only disclosed press clippings from these files,
the remaining information has been withheld under the exemptions cited.
Whilst the Home Office acknowledges that if something is released to one person it is
releasable to everyone, the Information Commissioner accepts that public authorities can
change their view over a release if they believe it is in the public interest to withhold.
I realise that this response will be a disappointment for you, however I do assure you that
the withholding of the information is in the overarching public interest.
Yours sincerely
Martin Riddle
Information Rights Team
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
Annex A – Original request
Dear Home Office,
This is a request tfor the following files on the Black Power Movement that are registered
in the National Archive as records HO 376/154 & 155:
- "Black Power" in the United Kingdom incl Appendix A: “’Black Power’ Organisations in
the United Kingdom,” Appendix B and further appendixes.
- "Black Power": intelligence reports
These records are not held by the National Archives (email 12 Nov 2018), nor do they
seem to appear on the Home Office FoI releases page.
However, they have been released to at least three different people in the past few years:
To Anne-Marie Angelo, and quoted in her PhD dissertation “‘Any Name That Has Power’:
The Black Panthers of Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States, 1948-1977,”
Duke University, 2013 twice: on page 166 in note 45:
Special Branch, “’Black Power’ in the United Kingdom,” August 11, 1970, 3, in “Black
Power intelligence reports, 1968-77,” Home Office (hereafter HO) 376/155, TNA: PRO.
(File released to author through Freedom of Information Act UK).
and on p.219, note 3:
The only party who identified the leader of the Panthers’ second phase as someone other
than Althea Jones was the Special Branch, as a recently declassified intelligence file
reveals. The Special Branch claimed that Eddie Lecointe led the Brixton Chapter, which it
characterized as, “the most active group in this organization.” Special Branch Report,
“’Black Power’ in the United Kingdom,” August 11, 1970, Appendix A: “’Black Power’
Organisations in the United Kingdom,” 2, in HO 376/154-155, “Black Power Intelligence
Reports,” TNA: PRO. (File released to author through Freedom of Information Act UK).
* Released to and quoted Winston Trew , the author of Black for a Cause, and quoted in
his blog post The British State, Special Branch and Black Power.
http://www.blackforacause.co.uk/page_2398674.html
* also quoted in this blog post on OCTOBER 25, 2017: Independent radical black politics:
looking at the BUFP & BL
F https://woodsmokeblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/25/42-
independent-radical-black-politics-looking-at-the-bufp-blf/
Can you please release the complete files including the annexes to me, and also deposit
them at the National Archives for the public to review.
Yours faithfully,
Annex B – Response
Dear Ms Lubbers
Freedom of Information Act 2000 request (Our Reference 52028)
Thank you for your e-mail of 22 January 2019, in which you asked for the information held
in the files on the “Black Power Movement” which are registered in the National Archives
as records HO 376/154 and HO 376/155.
Your request, which is set out in full in Annex A, has been handled as a request for
information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
The files HO 376/154
"Black Power": intelligence reports and HO 376/155
“Black Power”:
intelligence reports 1968-1977 are showing as currently retained by the Home Office on
The National Archives (TNA) catalogue.
I can confirm that the Home Office holds the information which you have requested. I am
able to disclose a very small amount of material which accompanies this letter.
We have decided that the remaining information is exempt from disclosure under the
following sections of the Act:
Section 40(2) (personal information). This exemption provides that information can
be withheld if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles.
The Home Office has obligations under data protection legislation and in law
generally to protect personal data. We have concluded that the information you
have requested is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA, because
of the condition at section 40(3A)(a). This exempts personal data if disclosure would
contravene any of the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data
Protection Regulation and section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018. Section 40
is an absolute exemption and no public interest test (PIT) is required.
Sections 23 and 24, in the alternative. In the circumstances of this case it is not
appropriate to provide any information that would undermine national security or
reveal the extent of any involvement of the security bodies listed in section 23(3) of
the FOIA. We are therefore applying sections 23(1) (information supplied by or
relating to security bodies) and section 24(1) (national security) in the alternative.
This means that only one of the two exemptions is engaged, but it is not appropriate
to say which one. Section 24(1) is a qualified exemption, which means that the
balance of the public interest in applying it must be considered. This response does
not confirm which of the two exemptions is engaged and, to the extent to which
section 24(1) could be engaged. We are not obliged to give any further explanation
by virtue of section 17(4), because to do so would involve the disclosure of
information which would itself be exempt.
The balance of public interest in releasing or withholding this information, in terms
of section 24(1), has been considered. Taking into account all the circumstances of
this case we have determined that any disclosure that would prejudice national
security would be contrary to the public interest.
•Section 23(1) is an absolute exemption and no public interest test is required.
Section 31(1)(a). This section provides that information can be withheld if disclosure
would, or be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, and the
balance of the public interest lies in favour of withholding the information.
Section 27(1). Information is exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be
likely to, prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any other State, the
United Kingdom and any international organisation or international court, the
interests of the United Kingdom abroad, or the promotion or protection by the
United Kingdom of its interests abroad.
Arguments for and against disclosure in terms of the public interest relating to section 31
and section 27, with the reasons for our conclusion, are set out in Annex B.
You may be interested to know that as a result of our deliberations, we believe that some
of the material from HO 376/154 – namely Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) report(s), can
be accessed from TNA catalogue, and can be found via the following link:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11020870 If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review
of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx , quoting reference 52028. If you ask for an internal
review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request would
be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you
were to remain dissatisfied after an internal review, you would have a right of complaint to
the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the FOIA.
Yours sincerely
Annex A: Request in full Dear Home Office,
This is a request for the following files on the Black Power Movement that are registered in
the National Archive as records HO 376/154 & 155:
- "Black Power" in the United Kingdom incl Appendix A: “’Black Power’ Organisations in
the United Kingdom,” Appendix B and further appendixes.
- "Black Power": intelligence reports
These records are not held by the National Archives (email 12 Nov 2018), nor do they
seem to appear on the Home Office FoI releases page.
However, they have been released to at least three different people in the past few years:
To Anne-Marie Angelo, and quoted in her PhD dissertation “‘Any Name That Has Power’:
The Black Panthers of Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States, 1948-1977,”
Duke University, 2013 twice: on page 166 in note 45:
Special Branch, “’Black Power’ in the United Kingdom,” August 11, 1970, 3, in “Black
Power intelligence reports, 1968-77,” Home Office (hereafter HO) 376/155, TNA: PRO.
(File released to author through Freedom of Information Act UK).
and on p.219, note 3:
The only party who identified the leader of the Panthers’ second phase as someone other
than Althea Jones was the Special Branch, as a recently declassified intelligence file
reveals. The Special Branch claimed that Eddie Lecointe led the Brixton Chapter, which it
characterized as, “the most active group in this organization.” Special Branch Report,
“’Black Power’ in the United Kingdom,” August 11, 1970, Appendix A: “’Black Power’
Organisations in the United Kingdom,” 2, in HO 376/154-155, “Black Power Intelligence
Reports,” TNA: PRO. (File released to author through Freedom of Information Act UK).
* Released to and quoted Winston Trew , the author of Black for a Cause, and quoted in
his blog post The British State, Special Branch and Black Power.
http://www.blackforacause.co.uk/page_2398674.html
* also quoted in this blog post on OCTOBER 25, 2017: Independent radical black politics:
looking at the BUFP & BLF https://woodsmokeblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/25/42-
independent-radical-black-politics-looking-at-the-bufp-blf/
Can you please release the complete files including the annexes to me, and also deposit
them at the National Archives for the public to review.
Yours faithfully,
Annex B: Explanation of exemptions and public interest test. Section (31)(1)(a) – law enforcement and section 27(1) – international relations.
Some of the exemptions in the FOI Act, referred to as ‘qualified exemptions’, are subject to
a public interest test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure
against the public interest in maintaining the exemption. We must carry out a PIT where
we are considering using any of the qualified exemptions in response to a request for
information.
The ‘public interest’ is not the same as what interests the public. In carrying out a PIT we
consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if the information is
released or not. Transparency and the ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the n
against the need to enable effective government and to serve the best interests of the
public.
The FOI Act is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the
motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we are
expressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone, including those who
might represent a threat to the UK.
Public interest considerations in favour of disclosure
In this context there is a public interest in knowing the nature and extent of law
enforcement activity in relation to “Black Power” during the late 1960s through to the late
1970’s.
Disclosure of information contained within files HO 376/154 and HO 376/155 would
provide evidence of how the police - including Special Branch - safeguard the democratic
process from those who may wish to undermine it. In turn such information would open the
police services up to public scrutiny and provide an insight into police intelligence. It could
also help to engender trust between the public and law enforcement agencies, and also
provide reassurance that law enforcement agencies are capable of monitoring individuals
and maintaining communal safety.
Disclosure of the information in the files referenced above would also lead to a deeper
public understanding and awareness in matters relating to international relations. There is
a public interest in knowing the nature and extent of the UK’s relationships with foreign
states in relation to this issue and those associated individuals.
Public interest considerations in favour of maintaining the exemptions
The Home Office considers that disclosure would adversely affect the ability of the police
and other law enforcement agencies to safeguard the public and maintain law and order.
The material in files HO 376/154 and 376/155 contains considerable detail about the
organisations and individuals that were (and may still be) of interest to the police services
– including Special Branch. It is implicit in the duties and responsibilities of the police force
that the covert nature of its work is vital to enable it to effectively monitor and counter
those who seek to subvert the democratic process, or who seek to (or have the potential
to), threaten public order.
If the detail of focus, methodology and targeting contained in this record changes little over
time and could, if disclosed, compromise operational integrity and reveal police tactics.
This would be prejudicial to the prevention and detection of crime.
The Home Office recognises that disclosure could adversely affect the UK’s relationship
and reputation with other countries.
Delivery of our domestic and foreign policy objectives, relies to a large extent on the free
flow of confidential information between the UK and other countries. Full and frank
discussions take place; views and information are exchanged. There clearly would be a
prejudice to international relations if the information you have requested is disclosed:
countries may be less willing to assist the UK in the future and/or less likely to share such
documents or information with us in the future, impeding our ability to develop and/or carry
out public policy. There is also the added potential that a reluctance to dissimilate
information could put the safety and security of UK citizens at risk which would also not be
in the public interest.
Conclusion
We conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemptions and
withholding the information
Annex C – Internal Review
Dear Home Office,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's handling of my FOI request
'"Black Power" reports - already released', reference 52028.
I was very disappointed to hear that the Home Office have decided against releasing the
files that I had asked for, but for two tiny newspaper cuttings that are readily available from
newspaper archives.
The reason I am asking for an internal review is that the HO has failed to address the fact
that the files in question have already been released to other people in the recent past. In
fact, the subject of my request is 'Black Power reports - already released'. Nontheless, this
is totally ignored in the decision I received.
In my FoI request, I had given references including the details of the publications quoting
the files.
One of these authors, Anne-Marie Angelo,
lecturer In American History at the
University of Sussex, has kindly shared the details of her request with me since. For your
convenience her reference number was CR19408, and she received the materials on 11
August 2011.
Additionally, I have learned that Robin Bunce, Research Associate at Cambridge
University also received copies of the files.
Information released under the FOI Act is released to the world. A disclosure to one is a
disclosure to all.
These files relate to an important part in our history from around 50 years back. In your
internal review, could you please explain why only a couple of years ago the Home Office
saw no problem in releasing them - and now refuses to do so.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this
address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/black_power_reports_already_rele
Yours faithfully,
Annex D – Complaints procedure
This completes the internal review process by the Home Office. If you remain dissatisfied
with the response to your FoI request, you have the right of complaint to the Information
Commissioner at the following address:
The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
