Constable Savage

The request was refused by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Edward Williams

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

BACKGROUND
I refer to this article in ES online:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/po...

"Mr Savage, of Hermon Hill, Wanstead, north-east London, has been on restricted duties with the Met since the incident.

Jonathan Green, regional director of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, said: "Our investigation found that a misconduct hearing could decide Pc Savage's actions amount to gross misconduct."

"Mr Savage claimed that "the majority" of response officers carry their own bladed tools on duty."

REQUEST
1.Provide the IOPC report.
2.Provide time and venue for Savage's hearing.
3. Provide rules, guidance etc. issued by MPS with regard to carrying a multitool or similar bladed object.

Yours faithfully,

Edward Williams

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Williams

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018070001078

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/07/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

• BACKGROUND I refer to this article in ES online:
https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=7089&a...
• "Mr Savage, of Hermon Hill, Wanstead, north-east London, has been on
restricted duties with the Met since the incident. Jonathan Green,
regional director of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, said:
"Our investigation found that a misconduct hearing could decide Pc
Savage's actions amount to gross misconduct." "Mr Savage claimed that
"the majority" of response officers carry their own bladed tools on
duty."
• REQUEST
• 1.Provide the IOPC report.
• 2.Provide time and venue for Savage's hearing.
• 3. Provide rules, guidance etc. issued by MPS with regard to carrying
a multitool or similar bladed object.

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 [The Met request email] 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

David Edwards
Information Rights Unit
 
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
[The Met request email]

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

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Williams

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018070001078

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/07/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

BACKGROUND

I refer to this article in ES online:

https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=7089&a...

"Mr Savage, of Hermon Hill, Wanstead, north-east London, has been on
restricted duties with the Met since the incident.

Jonathan Green, regional director of the Independent Office for Police
Conduct, said: "Our investigation found that a misconduct hearing could
decide Pc Savage's actions amount to gross misconduct."

"Mr Savage claimed that "the majority" of response officers carry their
own bladed tools on duty."

REQUEST

1. Provide the IOPC report.

2. Provide time and venue for Savage's hearing.

3. Provide rules, guidance etc. issued by MPS with regard to carrying a
multitool or similar bladed object.

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the MPS. The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

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

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public
authorities.  A public authority in receipt of a request must if
permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public
authority and if so then communicate that information to the applicant.

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 not suitable 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.

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I
am not required by statute to release all the information requested. This
response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

1.Provide the IOPC report.

This information is exempt under Sec 30(1)
The IOPC report forms part of an ongoing live misconduct process (a legal
tribunal) and will not be supplied to any person outside of that process.
The reasons for this is that it is a confidential document with no general
entitlement, and in order to avoid the potential prejudice of those
proceedings.
At the point of appropriate disclosure the only parties eligible to
receive this document are the people engaged in this process. Members of
the public are not entitled to see this document.  
The report is the property of the IOPC and the report states that may be
published (and possibly in redacted form) at the conclusion of any other
misconduct or inquest proceedings when they are satisfied that it would
not prejudice those proceedings.

DISCLOSURE

2. Provide time and venue for Savage's hearing.
The hearing is yet to be scheduled. The details will be advertised on the
MPS Internet site approximately 1 week prior to the date as per the
requirements of the Police Conduct Regulations.

3. Provide rules, guidance etc. issued by MPS with regard to carrying a
multitool or similar bladed object.
There is no MPS policy or local Camden policy specifically relating to the
carrying of multi- tools.

Section 30(1)(a) and (2)(a)(iii) - Investigations and Proceedings
conducted by Public Authorities: Qualified Exemptions/Class Based

Under Section 30(1)(a) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold
information if it has, at any time, been held by the authority for the
purposes of any investigation with a view to it being ascertained whether
a person should be charged with an offence. Under Section 30(2)(a)(iii) of
the Act, information can be withheld if it was obtained or recorded for
the purposes of investigations which are conducted to ascertain whether
any person has failed to comply with the law and/or is responsible for any
conduct which is improper.

I have applied this exemption in that the requested information formed
part of an investigation carried out by the MPS as a result of allegations
made.

This exemption is both qualified and class based. I am therefore required
to consider whether the public interest lies in disclosing or withholding
the requested information. I have accordingly conducted a Public Interest
Test (PIT) to determine whether release of the requested information is in
the public interest. This exemption is also class based. I am accordingly
not required to demonstrate what prejudice/harm would result from
disclosure.

Please find the PIT considerations that I have identified and considered
in relation to my application of Section 30(1)(a) and (2)(a)(iii) of the
Act.

Public Interest Considerations Favouring Disclosure

Accountability
The MPS is a public authority and it is both right and proper that it
should be held to account for its actions and the conduct of its
employees. The public release of the requested information would reinforce
the MPS commitment as an open and transparent organisation.  Release would
also demonstrate that the MPS is prepared to engage the general public in
matters of public interest when a request for information is made.

Public Awareness/Debate
There has been considerable public and media interest/speculation
regarding the alleged actions of an MPS employee. Owing to the speculation
surrounding this investigation, there is a public interest in making
suitable information available to the public that would inform and enhance
the accuracy of public debate.

Public Confidence
The general public rightly expects the highest standards of
professionalism in the delivery of policing services by the MPS. Any
allegation of malpractice can accordingly serve to damage the relationship
between the MPS and the general public. It is important that the MPS
shares suitable information with the public at the appropriate time in
order to maintain public confidence.

Public Interest Considerations Favouring Non-Disclosure

Information provided in Confidence
During the course of an investigation to determine whether an officer
should be subject to misconduct procedures, the investigating officer will
gather information from all available sources.  This information will
include any correspondence between the MPS and witnesses which is deemed
confidential and is provided in confidence upon the understanding that its
provision is to further the investigation.  There would be no reasonable
expectation that the information provided would be released publicly.  
Release of this information would, accordingly, be in breach of the
confidence associated with its provision and would be unfair to those
parties that gave witness statements to assist the investigation.
 
Flow of Information to the service
To disclose investigative information that has been provided in confidence
could result in people becoming unwilling to come forward in the future
with information that could assist the police with their investigations.
 The public, whether general members of the public or internal police
officers or police staff, must be confident that any information they
provide to further the course of an investigation will be treated
appropriately.

Internal Investigations
The requested information was collated solely in connection with the MPS
investigation regarding the conduct of its officers.  The public release
of this information would not be in keeping with the restricted use of MPS
internal investigation reports.

Public Release of police information
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 any release of information is
considered to be 'public disclosure' and is subject to future release to
any individual should a request be received.  The public release of
information that is held for the purpose of an investigation would be
contrary to the purposes for which the requested information was acquired
and is held.

Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interest I have determined that the
disclosure of the requested information would not be in the public
interest.  I consider that the benefit that would result from the
requested information being released does not outweigh the reasons
articulated above in favour of non-disclosure of the information.

The MPS expects its staff to behave professionally, ethically and with the
utmost of integrity at all times.  Any instance where the conduct of our
staff brings the MPS into disrepute is treated extremely seriously in line
with MPS policy.

Securing and maintaining the trust of the community is integral to the
principle of policing by consent and in order to do so, the MPS recognises
that its employees must act with professionalism and integrity whether on
or off duty.

May I apologise for the delay in responding to your request and any
inconvenience caused.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me via email at [email address], quoting the
reference number above.
Yours sincerely

Maureen McGuire
Information Manager
Information Rights Unit

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 30(1)(a)(b) and (2)(a)(iii) 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 30(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, information can be withheld if it was
obtained or recorded for the purposes of investigations which are
conducted to ascertain whether any person has failed to comply with the
law and/or is responsible for any conduct which is improper.

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
[The Met request email]

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

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'Constable Savage'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Yours faithfully,

Edward Williams

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Williams

 

Temporary Freedom of Information Review Reference No: RL023

 

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to your request which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/08/2018.  

 

A review will now be conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice
issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). 
The reviewing officer will reconsider the original request before
responding to you with their findings.

 

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an
Internal Review.  However, the MPS aim to complete Internal Reviews within
20 working days or in exceptional cases, within 40 working days.  This is
based upon guidance published by the Information Commissioner.

 

If it is not possible to complete the Internal Review within this
timescale you will be informed at the earliest opportunity.

 

If you are unhappy with the outcome of an Internal Review you may wish to
refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

 

For information on how to make an 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

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

R. Loizou

Support Officer – Freedom of Information Triage Team

 

 

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018070001078

I am only challenging the failure to release the report into Savage.

The exemption does not apply because the criminal trial is over.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lo...
Accused PC Joshua Savage cleared of assault

Releasing the report will have no bearing any misconduct hearing.

Yours faithfully,

Edward Williams

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

What is the reason for delay?

Yours faithfully,

Edward Williams

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Williams

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2018090000634

I write in connection with your request for a review of the decision
relating to  2018070001078   which was received by the Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS) on  24/08/2018.  
I have unfortunately been unable to complete a full internal review within
our target response time of 20 working days.  The MPS endeavour to respond
to your complaint as soon as possible and in any case no later than
22/10/2018..
Should there be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as
soon as possible.
Please accept my apologies for the delay and thank you for your patience

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager
Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Williams

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2018090000634

Apologies for the delay in completing your request for an Internal
Review..

Further to my previous email dated 28/09/2018, I am now able to provide a
response to your complaint concerning Freedom of Information Act (FOIA /
the Act) request reference number: 2018070001078  .  

This review concentrates on the following request that you submitted to
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/07/2018:

I refer to this article in ES online:
https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=7089&a...
"Mr Savage, of Hermon Hill, Wanstead, north-east London, has been on
restricted duties with the Met since the incident.
Jonathan Green, regional director of the Independent Office for Police
Conduct, said: "Our investigation found that a misconduct hearing could
decide Pc Savage's actions amount to gross misconduct."
"Mr Savage claimed that "the majority" of response officers carry their
own bladed tools on duty."
REQUEST
1. Provide the IOPC report.
2. Provide time and venue for Savage's hearing.
3. Provide rules, guidance etc. issued by MPS with regard to carrying a
multitool or similar bladed object.

On 24/08/2018, we provided you with a partial disclosure. We exempted some
of the information by virtue of:
Section 30(1)(a) and (2)(a)(iii) - Investigations and Proceedings
conducted by Public Authorities

On 04/09/2018, you complained as follows:

I am only challenging the failure to release the report into Savage.

The exemption does not apply because the criminal trial is over.

https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=7089&a...

Accused PC Joshua Savage cleared of assault

Releasing the report will have no bearing any misconduct hearing.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to vary its decision. The MPS maintains its reliance on Section
30(1) of the Act and now additionally exempts some of the requested
information under Section 40(2) & (3A)(a) - Personal data.

REASON FOR DECISION

Reasons for reliance on exemption Section 30 - Investigations

You have asked for a copy the IOPC's report concerning PC Savage.

The MPS considers that disclosure of our copy of the IOPC report in
respect of PC Savage to be harmful and have therefore cited section 30 in
respect of this request.

You have argued:

I am only challenging the failure to release the report into Savage.

The exemption does not apply because the criminal trial is over.

Although the criminal trial of PC Savage has concluded, it is extricably
linked to the forthcoming MPS misconduct investigation concerning PC
Savage. It should be noted that the report you refer to was written by the
IOPC and as such any disclosure in whole or in part will be for
consideration by  the IOPC at the conclusion of the misconduct hearing.

Disclosure of the IOPC report at this time would be prejudicial to the
forthcoming misconduct hearing concerning PC Savage.The consequences of
disclosure would be detrimental as it would be unfair to all those
concerned to disclose information which could impact on the misconduct
hearing.

Section 30 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 purpose 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

Held at any time

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) reminds public authorities
that 'Section 30(1) provides an exemption from the duty to disclose
information that a public authority has held at any time for certain
investigations or proceedings. As long as the other requirements of the
exemption are satisfied, the exemption will apply to information even if
it was not originally obtained or generated for one of those purposes and
it will continue to protect information even if it is no longer being used
for the specified investigation or proceeding. It is only necessary for
the information to have been held at some point for those purposes. The
exemption applies to information rather than documents so it is possible
that information contained in a document created after the conclusion of
an investigation or set of proceedings could still attract the exemption…'

The review can advise that in this case Section 30(1) (a) of the Act has
been engaged as the information requested relates to investigations, which
the MPS has had a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained
whether a person/s should be charged with an offence/s, or whether a
person/s charged with an offence/s is guilty of it. Where this exemption
is engaged, the public interest must favour the maintenance of the
exemption over disclosure of the information. Where the public interest
favours disclosure, the information in question should be disclosed
despite the exemption being engaged. As a class based exemption, this
means it is not necessary to identify some harm that may occur as a result
of disclosure in order to engage the exemption, however the ICO reminds
public authorities 'although you do not have to identify some prejudice in
order to engage the exemption, it will be an important factor when
applying the public interest test.'

The review is satisfied that, whilst release of the requested information
would reinforce the MPS commitment as an open and transparent
organisation, this has to be balanced against the harm that would be
caused by how victims, witnesses and others linked to investigations
perceived how the MPS would treat any information which formed part of any
investigation.

Additionally, when considering the balance of the public interest, the
Commissioner believed that consideration should be given to protecting
what is inherent in those exemptions contained in section 30(1) - the
effective investigation and prosecution of crime - which required the
following:

"        'the protection of witnesses and informers to ensure people are
not deterred from making statements or reports for fear it might be
publicised;
"        the maintenance of independence of the judicial and prosecution
processes;
"        preservation of the criminal court as the sole forum for
determining guilt;
"        allowing the investigating body space to determine the course of
an investigation; and
"        information that deals with specialist techniques.'

The ICO further advises when weighing up the public interest in relation
to this exemption the following factors (amongst others) should be
considered:
"        the stage or stages reached in any particular investigation or
criminal proceedings;
"        whether and to what extent the information has already been
released into the public domain;
"        the significance or sensitivity of the information; and
"        the age of the information.'

The review is satisfied that the case is not made out for the release of
the requested information and that Section 30(1)(a) Act is appropriately
engaged

Section 40(2) & (3A)(a) - Personal data

Section 40 is an absolute class based exemption.

You have asked for a copy the IOPC's report concerning PC Savage.

Section 40 exemption has been applied as disclosure of the information you
have requested could identify living individuals linked to investigations.
This constitutes personal data which would, if released, be in breach of
the rights provided by the DPA 2018 and GDPR.

A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both
the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable
for open publication. This is because, under the Act, any information
disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the
world, not just to an individual.

In the circumstances of your request, the disclosure of this information
would be in breach of the first data protection principle, specified
within Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
which requires that personal data shall be:

'processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the
data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’);'

The disclosure of personal data contained within the MPS' copy of the IOPC
report would be unfair in this case. This is because the disclosure of the
personal data contained within the report is not necessary to satisfy the
legitimate public interest and in relation to personal data, there is no
presumption of disclosure. Furthermore, none of the conditions specified
within Article 6 of the GDPR would be met.

To comply with DPA 2018 and GDPR, the MPS must ensure that any disclosures
of personal data, however obtained, are lawful and fair. Although there is
information in the public domain concerning matters linked to PC Savage,
some of these matters are ongoing. Release of the requested information
would be unfair as those linked to these matters would not reasonably
expect the MPS to publish information that would allow them to be
identified and / or their personal information placed into the public
domain . Additionally, disclosure of the requested information could be
prejudicial to those concerned and may lead to an invasion of their
privacy by unwanted and unsolicited intrusion from the media or others
interested in the facts of the matter and / or could lead to harm to the
individuals concerned.

The review recognises the general public interest argument in ensuring
transparency in the activities of public authorities.  It is recognised
that transparency is the fundamental objective of the Freedom of
information Act and this leads itself to a presumption of disclosure.
However, this has to be balanced against the rights afforded to
individuals under DPA and GDPR and it is for this reason that I consider
that the MPS is justified in its use of Section 40 exemption.

Section 16: Advice and Assistance:

Misconduct Hearing dates are released on the MPS website at least 5 days
before to a hearing. Therefore you may wish to check periodically for the
Misconduct Hearing date concerning PC Savage. I have provided the relevant
link below:

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-...

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this Internal Review you have
the right to appeal the decision by contacting the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO) for a decision on whether the request for
information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the
FOIA.

For information on how to make an 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

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk