Dear Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014030002277
I write in connection with your request for information  which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/03/2014.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

* "I believe that the Deputy Commissioner holds daily SMT Meetings.
Could you please provide me, preferably in electronic format, copies
of the official Minutes of those meetings, together with copies of any
handwritten notes made by the Deputy Commissioner's PA/Secretary for
the month of April 2012? "

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 address or my colleagues at [email address]
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S Bhaskaran
Customer Services Administration 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
Public Access Office
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.  Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

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 Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014030002277

I write in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/03/2014.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

* I believe that the Deputy Commissioner holds daily SMT Meetings.  
Could you please provide me, preferably in electronic format, copies
of the official Minutes of those meetings, together with copies of any
handwritten notes made by the Deputy Commissioner's PA/Secretary for
the month of April 2012?

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering
whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified
exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest
before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application
of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can
extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

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.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are
currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the
information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond
within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):

Section 38 Health and Safety
Section 40 Personal Information
Section 30 Investigations and Proceedings conducted by a public authority
Section 31 Law enforcement

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 21st May
2014

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 02071616511 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Margaret Bunker
Information Manager
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
Public Access Office
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

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

Good morning Mr Williams,
 
I have drafted your response and it is currently sitting with our Decision
Maker for sign off.  This is a normal procedure and I will be speaking to
him later today.
 
With regards to your comment on the S38 Health and Safety exemption that
is being considered I must explain that the minutes you have requested
contain details of discussions on the Policing of the MPS area as a
whole.  Given that your response will appear immediately on the world wide
web we have a duty of care to all citizens and therefore we must be
responsible and consider any risk to the general public.
 
I shall be back with a response as soon as possible and apologise for the
inconvenience.
 
Kind regards,
Margaret
 

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 Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014030002277

I write in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/03/2014.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

·        I believe that the Deputy Commissioner holds daily SMT Meetings.
  Could you please provide me, preferably in electronic format, copies of
the official Minutes of those meetings, together with copies of any
handwritten notes made by the Deputy Commissioner's PA/Secretary for the
month of April 2012?

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at The Directorate of Professional Standards and The Commissioners Private
Office.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located records relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to:

Disclose records subject to the deletion of information pursuant to the
provisions of sections 30, 31, 38 and 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR 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.  

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.

Section 30 of the Act provides:

Section 30 (2)(a)(b) of the Act allows an authority to exempt information
where it has, at any time, been held for the purpose of specified criminal
and other investigations or proceedings; and where it relates to the
obtaining of information from confidential sources and was obtained or
recorded for a number of specified investigations or proceedings.  Section
30 requires a Public Interest Test, which can be found below.

Evidence of Harm for Section 30 Considerations

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have
considered the potential HARM that could be caused by disclosure.

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant
for information.  We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under
the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in
disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to
provide it to anyone in the world.  This means that a disclosure to a
genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar
disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to
individuals, or any possible judicial process.

The MPS does not disclose information from investigations without
significant public interest favouring disclosure.  The information you
have requested will include subject matter that has been obtained for the
purposes of an investigation.  It is unlikely that any information
relating to an ongoing investigation would be disclosed if there is any
possibility that its release could affect the investigation and therefore
any potential criminal proceeding or judicial process.

The public interest is not what interests the public, but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole.  It is not in the
public interest to disclose information that may compromise the service's
ability to fulfill its core function of law enforcement or jeopadise any
possible future criminal investigation.

Public Interest Test

Section 30 Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

The public release of the requested information would reinforce the MPS
commitment to openness and transparency.  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.

The disclosure of some information would be informative and allow for a
certain amount of transparency during the early stages into various
investigations.

The investigations discussed at this level are high profile and disclosure
of information can assist individuals by raising awareness of issues which
may be of relevance to them.  Disclosure will allow for accurate public
debate which corrects rumour, speculation and falsehoods.

Section 30 Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

The MPS is unable to disclose information which is being used as part of
an investigation, and may be used to determine the outcome of a court
case, hearing and any subsequent hearings.  To do this would be subjudice.
There is a legal requirement to refrain from disclosing information which
would place the integrity of an investigation at risk.  Once the
investigation or legal process is complete, some information may be deemed
suitable for disclosure.

Any persons involved in a court case or hearing (including any subsequent
hearings) have the right to a fair trial.  This may not be possible if the
disclosure of certain information influences decisions or matters of
consideration during legal proceedings.

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have
considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

If the disclosure of information into the public domain is not achieved in
a timely manner, thereby affecting investigations and legal proceedings,
the MPS and the public may find a decrease in people wanting to become
police officers, as their faith in the role of the MPS and judicial
process may be affected.  If this was to happen, the law enforcement role
of the MPS will be at risk as there may simply not be sufficient
recruitment into the MPS, allowing for the continual growth of police
officers to continue the policing role required to effectively prevent or
detect crime and to apprehend or prosecute offenders.

Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
 I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh disclosing information relating to
Operational Investigations.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement/Qualified Exemption

Section 31 is a qualified and prejudice based exemption.   I am therefore
required to provide you with a prejudice test and Public Interest Test in
regards to the application of this exemption.

Prejudice Test

Law enforcement tactics would be compromised with the full disclosure of
any reference to covert policing or other police tactics. Redacted
information within the emails detailing discussions on this subject may
provide an operational advantage to those who seek to commit criminal
acts.

Disclosure would therefore risk compromising the MPS, as well as other
forces techniques, in investigating crime.

Disclosure of the redacted information would also compromise forces'
future law enforcement capabilities, as those who wish to commit offences
may use the information to gain operational advantage over a current or
future investigation. They may do so as disclosure would deepen an
understanding of the methods police are likely to use to investigate crime
and crime scenes.

The MPS handling of investigations require absolute care and
professionalism. Disclosure of policing tactics and methodology in regards
to often traumatic instances of crime, would detrimentally affect the
trust the community has in the police, who expect us to investigate crime
effectively and efficiently.

The outcome for the prejudice detailed above can only hinder the detection
and prevention of crime. The MPS and other police forces already often
rely on limited resources. Providing details on investigative technique
may enable a criminal to evade detection and obtain an operational
advantage over the MPS. This would lead to the MPS having to further
stretch resources due to disclosure under the Act. It would not be in the
public interest for the MPS to have to continually change procedure and
protocol due to a FOIA disclosure of tactics and methodology.

Considerations favouring disclosure

Better awareness of MPS procedure in relation to the investigation of
crime would provide the public with a better understanding of police
action and procedure.

Full disclosure of the contents of the minutes would enable the public to
gain a deeper understanding of how police ensure investigations are
carried out methodically and competently.

Considerations favouring non-disclosure

Law enforcement tactics could be compromised with the full disclosure of
the minutes.

To disclose policing methods and tactics under the Freedom of Information
could provide an operational advantage to those who seek to commit
criminal acts.  It would in no way be in the public interest to disclose
such details into the public domain. This would risk compromising the work
of the MPS, as well as other forces techniques in investigating serious
offences.

Factors favouring disclosure in this case are likely to be weaker while
our tactics and methodology is still currently in use.  In regards to
tactics which may no longer be in use contained within the minutes, the
MPS remains aware that it is not uncommon for outdated tactics to be
brought back into use, sometimes many years later, as criminals modify
their behaviour.

Balance Test

The strongest consideration favouring disclosure is providing the public
with a greater awareness of how the police conduct their investigations
into crime. The strongest consideration favouring non-disclosure is the
operational risk disclosure of tactics and methodology would have on the
capabilities and efficient functioning of the police, to conduct their
role without fear of sabotage by criminals aware of policing processes.

On weighing up the competing interests I find the public interest favours
non-disclosure of the  minutes in full.   My decision is based on the
understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public,
but is what would be of greater good, if disclosed, to the community as a
whole.

Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i) - Personal Information: Absolute
Exemption/Class Based

Section 40(2)(a)(b) of the Act provides that any information to which a
request for information relates, is exempt information if the first
condition of Section 40(3)(a)(i) states that the information is exempt if
its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles.

One of the main differences between the Data Protection Act (1998) and the
Freedom of Information Act (2000) is that any information released under
FOI is released into the public domain, not just to the individual
requesting the information. As such, any release that identifies an
individual through releasing their personal data, even third party
personal data, is exempt.
                                                                         
                                                                         
                                                                         
                                                                         
                                  Section 40(2) applies to third party
personal data.  This would not be released under the Freedom of
Information Act unless there is a strong public interest.  This is because
any release would breach the Data Protection Principles contained within
the Data Protection Act (1998).  

The eight principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) govern the way
in which data controllers must manage personal information.  Personal data
is defined under the Data Protection Act (1998) as data that is
biographical in nature, has the applicant as its focus and/or affects the
data subject's privacy in his or her personal, professional or business
life. I have applied this exemption as you have requested information
where release would identify a living individual and as the MPS has a duty
to protect the identity of the individual with regard to his personal,
private and professional life I cannot disclose this information.
 Principle one of the DPA provides that personal data must be processed
fairly and lawfully. I consider that to release  information requested
relating to victims of crime and members of outside agencies would be to
process their personal data unfairly.  

This exemption is both absolute and class based therefore I am not
required to complete a 'Public Interest Test'.  

S38 Health and Safety (1)(a)

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.

Public Interest Test

Public Interest Considerations Favouring Disclosure

Accountability
The MPS is a public authority and should be held to account for its
actions.  The public release of the requested information would reinforce
the MPS commitment as an open and transparent organisation.

Public Interest Considerations Favouring Non-Disclosure

In considering your request, I have also considered the effect that the
release of information to a wider domain, would have upon the general
public.  In doing so, I have considered the risk of any friction or unrest
between different factions of London which would be caused by the release
of the information held.  I have attached considerable weight to this as
one of the primary roles of any Police Service is to serve and protect the
general public.  

Balancing Test

I must remind you that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, all
information and documents released would be out in the public domain and
available for anyone to see.   The details surrounding incidents in
relation to named gangs and any subsequent incidents would not be in the
public interest.   After weighing up the competing interests I have
determined that the disclosure of information relating to named groups
would not be in the public interest.  The decision to refuse disclosure
outweighs the decision to allow disclosure and therefore your application
is refused.

Here is the redacted data you have requested.

This notice concludes your request for information and I would like to
take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in the MPS.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.  

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 02071616511 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Margaret Bunker
Information Manager

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 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
Public Access Office
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

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