Our reference: 1007459
Mr Denis Fallon
Sent by email to:
request-555103-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
23 April 2019
Dear Mr Fallon
Thank you for your information request of the 22 February 2019. We have
considered your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and this
letter sets out our response.
In relation to an IOPC independent investigation into a fatal road traffic accident
involving West Midlands Police, you requested the following information:
“FOI Q1.Please disclose a copy of the referral made to the IOPC by West
Midlands Police ,regarding the collision incident of 22nd January 2019, so the
details of the stages of the pursuit can be understood.
FOI Q2.Please disclose a copy of the IOPC report completed by Regional
Director Derrick Campbell and advise to who the report was circulated after
being completed or, if not yet completed, who is due to be copied in on the
report and when is it due for completion.”
We explained in our letter of 22 March 2019 that the IOPC holds information relevant to
your request; however we considered that some of the material falls within the class of
information covered by a qualified exemption at section 30 of the FOIA. We considered that
we needed more time in which to balance the public interest in respect of this material and
to provide a full response.
We have now concluded our considerations and have decided and this letter sets out
our final response.
In relation to question one of your request, we have provided a redacted copy of the
referral form. Information that constitutes personal data has been redacted from the
referral by virtue of an exemption provided at section 40(2) of the FOIA. We have also
redacted information that falls within the scope of an exemption provided at section
30(1)(a)(i) of the FOIA relating to investigations and proceedings. We consider the
public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the legitimate interest in
disclosure of this particular information at this time.
Our specific reasons for withholding the information are set out below.
Section 30– Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities
Section 30(1)(a)(i) exempts material
“held by a public authority for the purposes of
any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it
being ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence”.
The IOPC is carrying out its own investigation into this case in line with its functions
under the Police Reform Act 2002. These include considering whether the
investigation report indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed, and
referring the report to the CPS when it does. As the IOPC is required to make these
decisions, the information we hold about this investigation falls within the class of
information covered by section 30.
Section 30 is a ‘qualified’ exemption subject to a public interest test, meaning we must
decide whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public
interest in disclosure.
Our arguments regarding the public interest test are as follows:
The public interest in release:
We accept that there is a legitimate public interest in publishing information
about an investigation into the conduct of police officers, as this serves to
inspire public confidence around the police complaints process. In turn this
would serve the public interest in openness and in accountability for decision
making and the use of public funds.
This particular case has attracted a lot of media attention and the release of the
detailed evidence contained in the investigation report would leave the public better
informed about the nature and context of this investigation, providing reassurance in
demonstrating that a serious matter was thoroughly and fairly investigated.
The public interest in refusal of the information:
This investigation is still ongoing. On completion of the entire investigation, a
decision will be made about what information will be released to the public
regarding our findings and conclusions. We consider that it would not be in the
public interest to disclose information that is pertinent to the investigation
before the matter is concluded, as this could cause prejudice to the ongoing
investigation and to effective law enforcement.
Furthermore, there is a risk that premature release of information will have the
effect of misleading and misinforming the public about the conduct of the
individuals involved. Release of this information at this time could impact on
the privacy of those individuals resulting in unwarranted harm or distress.
There is considerable public interest in ensuring that investigations are
conducted effectively. This requires the avoidance of prejudice to law
enforcement, protection of witnesses and a need to maintain the independence
of the judicial and prosecution processes by preserving the criminal court as the
sole forum for determining guilt.
Maintaining this exemption preserves the safe space that can be critical to the
investigation and prosecution process.
In addition, the protection of individuals who co-operate with the police ensures
that people are not deterred from making statements or reports by the fear that
they may be publicised. Accordingly, confidentiality in these circumstances
serves to promote effective investigation. In general these factors mean that
preserving confidentiality should normally be maintained in respect of the
investigation process and the evidence it produces.
It is also significant that the release of this particular information in isolation
may not enable the public to form a fair or balanced view about the
significance of the matters being discussed. There is a risk that the release of
this material could be misleading to the public without additional details to give
true context.
Taking all of these factors into account, we have decided that the public interest in
maintaining this exemption, in respect of the specific information falling within the
scope of section 30,outweighs the interest in disclosure.
Section 40 – Personal information
Section 40(2) applies to personal data about someone other than the requester when
disclosure would breach any of the data protection principles contained in Article 5 of
the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). In this case we need to ensure
that any personal data is processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in
relation to the individuals concerned.
The referral contains personal data of police officers and members of the public.
Some of this data is ‘special category data’ as defined under Article 9 of the GDPR.
In our view none of the conditions under articles 6 or 9 of the GDPR could be applied
that would allow release of this personal data meaning there is no lawful basis that
would support disclosure.
In assessing the fairness of disclosing personal information under the FOIA it is
necessary to recognise that this is effectively an unlimited disclosure to the world at
large, without conditions, which could lead to unwarranted intrusion resulting in damage
or distress. In addition, there is no presumption under the GDPR that openness and
transparency should take priority over personal privacy.
We have concluded that any legitimate interest in disclosure at this time could not
justify the invasion of privacy and potential distress that would be likely to result
making it inherently unfair. The fact that the IOPC investigation is still ongoing was a
factor within this conclusion.
As disclosure would be both unlawful and unfair, this would breach the data
protection principles meaning that the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA applies
to the personal data we have redacted.
In response to question two of your request, this information is not held. A final report
will be written at the conclusion of our investigation but at this point does not exist. We
are unable to confirm the date the report will be completed at this time. A
publication decision will be made in relation to the report once it is written and all
associated proceedings have concluded, in line with ou
r publication policy. If you have any questions about this request please contact us. Please remember to
quote reference number 1007459 in any future correspondence about this matter.
If you are not satisfied with this response you may request an internal review by an
independent internal reviewer, who has had no involvement in dealing with your
request. If you wish to complain about any aspect of this decision, please contact:
Reviewing Officer
Independent Office for Police Conduct
PO Box 473
Sale M33 0BW
All emails requesting a review should be sent
directly to
: xxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a right of complaint to
the Information Commissioner; however, we should point out that under section 50(2)(a) of
the Freedom of Information Act, you are normally obliged to exhaust the IOPC’s own
internal complaint mechanism before complaining to the Information Commissioner.
Yours sincerely
PP Derrick Campbell
Regional Director Independent Office for Police Conduct