Dear Ms Burnip

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017060000739

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 19/06/2017.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"Please can you provide the following information, regarding speeding
offences recorded on the A406 North Circular, between Hanger Lane Gyratory
and the junction with the A598 (Finchley Road/Regents Park Road):

1. The number of speeding offences/tickets issued on this road, for the
past 12 months (May2016 to June 2017). With a breakdown per month.

2. Of those offences noted in question 1, what was the maximum speed
recorded, the minimum speed recorded, and the average speed recorded."

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.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

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, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital 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).

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Ms Burnip
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017060000739
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 19/06/2017.  I note you seek
access to the following information:
       Please can you provide the following information, regarding
speeding offences recorded on the A406 North Circular,                
between Hanger Lane Gyratory and the junction with the A598 (Finchley
Road/Regents Park Road):
      1. The number of speeding offences/tickets issued on this road, for
the past 12 months (May 2016 to June 2017). With a                
breakdown per month.
       2. Of those offences noted in question 1, what was the maximum
speed recorded, the minimum speed recorded, and the                
average speed recorded. .
SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at Met HQ -  Performance & Assurance and Met Prosecutions.  The searches
located information relevant to your request.
DECISION
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information.  Some
data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this
response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  Please see the legal annex for further
information on the exemptions applied in respect of your request.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Section 31(1) - Law Enforcement and Section 38(1) - Health and Safety

Site specific offence data and deployment information is withheld from
disclosure by virtue of the Section 31(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement and the
Section 38(1)(a)(b) Health and Safety exemptions.

Section 31(1) of the Act provides an exemption from disclosure of
information which would, or would be likely to, prejudice law enforcement
functions, namely Section 31(1)(a) the prevention and detection of crimes
and Section 31(1)(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.  

Section 38(1)(a)(b) of the Act provides an exemption from disclosure of
information which would, or would be likely to, endanger the physical or
mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of an individual.
 

As these exemptions are prejudice based and qualified I am required to
provide you with evidence of harm in releasing the information and conduct
a Public Interest Test in order to demonstrate our assessment as to
whether or not it is in the public interest to disclose the requested
information in full.
DISCLOSURE
Please find attached, information in response to question 1 of your
request.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me via email at [email address], quoting the reference
number above.
Yours sincerely

Andrea Duncan
Information Manager
LEGAL ANNEX
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.
Section 31(1)(a)(b) 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,
Section 38(1)(a)(b) 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.
Evidence of Harm

Disclosing the maximum, minimum  and average speed recorded will impact
upon operational policing. Members of the public will be able to second
guess the likelihood of being caught at a specific site. It would also
provide members of the public with an operational advantage over speed
enforcement strategies which would render these strategies obsolete.

Section 31 has been engaged because the MPS does not want members of the
public to second-guess the likelihood of being caught at any specific site
as this information may give rise to motorists taking a chance to speed at
this particular site if it is believed that they will not be caught. This
would in turn have an impact on the safety of pedestrians and other road
users at large.

The release of this type of information would encourage further similar
requests which would lead to drivers being able to deduce by a process of
elimination those locations where the risk of being caught is more or less
likely. This would reduce the ability of safety camera technology to
impact on road safety. The disclosure of the requested information would
make it possible for an unscrupulous driver to estimate, or think they
could estimate, likely future enforcement patterns and adjust their
driving behaviour accordingly by a similar analysis of this type of camera
specific information. This cumulative effect of this type of intelligence
gathering is known as the 'mosaic effect' in which 'the resulting mosaic
of information is worth more than the sum of its parts'.
Public Interest Test
Public Interest considerations favouring disclosure

When information disclosed relates directly to the efficiency and
effectiveness of the force, the safety of cameras, or its officers then it
is generally of benefit to the community to release the information. In
this case, to provide information relating to detections that have been
caught at a specific site would provide the community with detailed
information making them aware that the MPS is tackling the issue of road
safety through prosecuting motorists that break the law by speeding and
enable the public to monitor the effectiveness of cameras as a deterrent.

Where release of information would contribute to the quality and accuracy
of public debate, it could be favoured to disclose information. In this
case, the awareness of site specific deployment of speed enforcement
cameras and detections may assist in more informed and accurate public
debate.

There may be occasions when it is appropriate to disclose information that
would have an impact on public safety. In this case, individuals could
benefit from having knowledge of the operation and activity of safety
cameras to ensure that they adhere to speed restrictions within the area,
as well as increase awareness of areas in which cameras are routinely
deployed which would help them gain an awareness of road safety issues.
Public Interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Where the current or future law enforcement of the force may be
compromised by the release of information, the force will opt not to
disclose. In this case, for the reasons outlined in the evidenced harm,
the effectiveness of current and future speed enforcement strategies to
combat road safety issues may be compromised by the full disclosure of the
requested information.

The presence of a camera serves as a deterrent for speeding, the aim is to
compel motorists to comply with speed limits. Thus any information that
might compromise this could furnish the public with operationally
sensitive information. If drivers are able to establish if they can avoid
being detected speeding at a particular site, this will undermine police
enforcement of the established speed limit. Disclosure would therefore
hinder law enforcement. Disclosing the requested information would enable
the public to establish if excessive speed is likely to result in a fine.
This could encourage illegal motoring behaviour thereby increasing the
likelihood of accidents. In turn, this behaviour would also require an
increased police presence in this area which would place an unnecessary
strain on resources.  If the requested information was disclosed in full
then drivers would know if they can and cannot pass this specific site at
a speed above the statutory limit. This would render the purpose of the
camera site at this location obsolete.

The deployment of speed cameras indicates that speeding, collisions and
injuries are a problem at the site. Law enforcement tactics would further
be compromised and speed enforcement strategies would be undermined if the
MPS were to divulge tactical information with regards to the maximum,
minimum  and average speed recorded.  Therefore, I believe that it would
not be in the public interest to release the withheld information.

Public safety is of paramount importance to the policing purpose and must
be considered in response to every release. In this case, to disclose the
information requested in full could compromise the operational
effectiveness of safety cameras and seriously undermine a road safety
initiative.
Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the requested dataset in full would not be in the public
interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from the
information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring
non-disclosure.

Whilst there is a public interest in knowing that the MPS takes its law
enforcement duties seriously, it is also important to ensure that public
safety is not compromised by the disclosure of information which is the
most decisive factor favouring non-disclosure. I am therefore unable to
disclose the full dataset to you as I believe that there is stronger
public interest in ensuring that the overall effectiveness of speed
cameras is not undermined or compromised.
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, 10 Lambs Conduit Street, London, WC1N 3NR.
 
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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  
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, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:
FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]
In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital 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).

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk