Directors of Intelligence (SO11) - dates of service

The request was partially successful.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I would like to request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act:

1. The dates and rank the following officers were Directors & Deputy Directors of Intelligence for the Metropolitan Police, namely as the ranking officers heading up the SO11 OCU.

2. The period, if any, these officers were members of the Association of Chief Police Officers' Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee, and any roles they may have carried out (eg. Secretary, Vice Chair, project lead).

The officers are
a) John Grieve
b) Roy Clark, Deputy to John Grieve
c) Alan Fry
d) William Mellish, Deputy to Alan Fry
e) John McDowell
f) Roger Pearce

Yours faithfully,

Peter Salmon

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Salmon

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017020000255

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 06/02/2017.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"1. The dates and rank the following officers were Directors & Deputy
Directors of Intelligence  for the Metropolitan Police, namely as the
ranking officers heading up  the SO11 OCU.

2. The period, if any, these officers were members of the Association of
Chief Police Officers' Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee, and any
roles they may have carried out (eg. Secretary, Vice Chair, project lead).

The officers are
a) John Grieve
b) Roy Clark, Deputy to John Grieve
c) Alan Fry
d) William Mellish, Deputy to Alan Fry
e) John McDowell
f) Roger Pearce"

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

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

 
Dear Mr Salmon
 
I write further to your freedom of information request relating to 6
individuals.
 
I note that the deadline for providing you with a response is 06/03/2017. 
Unfortunately, we are still in the process of ascertaining what
information is held and as such your response will be delayed.
 
As we have specific procedures to follow before your response can be sent
to you, I have to revise the deadline to on or before 24/03/2017.   If
there are any further slippages I will endeavour to make contact with you
beforehand.
 
Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience that this delay may
cause.
 
Kind Regards
 
 
C. Gayle-Petrou
Information Manager
 
:[email address]
 
 
 

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

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Salmon

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017020000255

Please accept my apologies for this late notification.  I write in
connection with your request for information which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 06/02/2017.  I note you seek access
to the following information:

* 1. The dates and rank the following officers were Directors & Deputy
Directors of Intelligence  for the Metropolitan Police, namely as the
ranking officers heading up  the SO11 OCU.

2. The period, if any, these officers were members of the Association of
Chief Police Officers' Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee, and any
roles they may have carried out (eg. Secretary, Vice Chair, project lead).
The officers are

a) John Grieve
b) Roy Clark, Deputy to John Grieve
c) Alan Fry
d) William Mellish, Deputy to Alan Fry
e) John McDowell
f) Roger Pearce

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated.

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.  Please see the legal annex for further
information on this section of the Act.

For your information we are considering the following exemption:

Section 31 - Law Enforcement

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 31/03/2017.  
I note that I previously emailed you to advise that your response had been
delayed until 24/03/2017, however please accept this letter as official
confirmation of an extension to the original deadline date.

Please also note that this notice neither confirms nor denies that all of
the information is held in respect of your request for information.

May I apologise for 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

C. Gayle-Petrou
Information Manager

LEGAL ANNEX

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.

 
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

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Salmon

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017020000255

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 06/02/2017.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

1. The dates and rank the following officers were Directors & Deputy
Directors of Intelligence for the Metropolitan Police, namely as the
ranking officers heading up the SO11 OCU.

2. The period, if any, these officers were members of the Association of
Chief Police Officers' Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee, and any
roles they may have carried out (eg. Secretary, Vice Chair, project lead).

The officers are

a) John Grieve

b) Roy Clark, Deputy to John Grieve

c) Alan Fry

d) William Mellish, Deputy to Alan Fry

e) John McDowell

f) Roger Pearce

Please accept my apologies for the late notification, but I am unable to
meet today's deadline for providing you with our response to this request.

Your response has been compiled and I am now awaiting approval before it
can be forwarded on to you.

As previously advised we have specific procedures to follow before a
response can be sent and as such there is likey to be a further two week
delay.  I will however, endeavour to forward your response to you before
14/04/2017.

Once again please accept my apologies for any inconvenience that this
further delay may have 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,

C. Gayle-Petrou
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
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

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Salmon

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017020000255

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 06/02/2017.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

1. The dates and rank the following officers were Directors & Deputy
Directors of Intelligence for the Metropolitan Police, namely as the
ranking officers heading up the SO11 OCU.

2. The period, if any, these officers were members of the Association of
Chief Police Officers' Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee, and any
roles they may have carried out (eg. Secretary, Vice Chair, project lead).

The officers are

a) John Grieve

b) Roy Clark, Deputy to John Grieve

c) Alan Fry

d) William Mellish, Deputy to Alan Fry

e) John McDowell

f) Roger Pearce

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at SSCL Shared Services.  The searches located information relevant to
your request.

DECISION

You have requested information on the dates and ranks officers were
Directors & Deputy Directors of Intelligence, heading up the SO11 OCU.  I
have taken this to mean acting in the rank of Detective Chief
Superintendent or above.  On this basis I have today decided to disclose
information relating to the officers who attained at least this rank along
with the dates employed in this position within the OCU.  

In relation to William Mellish our records do not indicate that he held a
‘Director’ or ‘Deputy Director’ level at SO11, therefore the information
you have requested in relation to this individual is not held.

In addition, in relation to whether any of the above mentioned officers
might or might not have been members of the Association of Chief Police
Officers' Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee, the Metropolitan Police
Service can neither confirm nor deny that information is held as the duty
in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by
virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(2) – National Security
Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(5) – Personal Information

Please see the legal annex for further information on the exemptions
applied in respect of your request.

DISCLOSURE

Please find attached table detailing the ranks held in relation to a
Director/Deputy Director at SO11 for John Grieve, Roy Clark, Alan Fry,
John McDowell and Roger Pearce.

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

Yours sincerely

C. Gayle-Petrou
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 24 - National Security

(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
exemption from section 1(1)(a) is required for the purpose of safeguarding
national security.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public
interest test and provide evidence of harm

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not we hold the information available to be
disclosed, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by
disclosure.

National security is not defined in the Act. However in the case of the
Norman Baker MP v. IC (2007) the House of Lords referred to the decision
in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Rehman (2001):
(i) national security  means ‘the security of the United Kingdom and its
people’
(ii) the interests of national security are not limited to action by an
individual which can be said to be ‘targeted at’ the UK, its system of
government or its people
(iii) the protection of democracy and the legal and constitutional systems
of the state is a part of national security as well as military defence
(iv) ‘action against a foreign state may be capable indirectly of
affecting the security of the United Kingdom’
(v) ‘reciprocal co-operation between United Kingdom and other states in
combating international terrorism is capable of promoting the United
Kingdom’s national security’

Based on this definition national security encompasses a wide spectrum and
it is our duty to protect the people within the UK.  Public safety is of
paramount importance to the policing purpose and must be taken into
account in deciding whether to disclose the information or not.  To
disclose the requested information, if held, would allow interested
parties to gain an upper hand and awareness of policing decisions used to
safeguard national security. As you may be aware, disclosure under FOIA is
a release to the public at large. Therefore, by confirming in the public
domain whether these individuals were members of the ACPO TAM Committee
performing specific roles, could potentially be misused proving
detrimental to national security.

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S24 – The information simply
relates to national security and disclosure would not actually harm it.
The public are entitled to know what security measures are in place.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S24 – To confirm or deny
whether any information is held risks prejudicing national security. The
disclosure whether this information is or is not held would render
security measures less effective which would compromise ongoing or future
operations which protect the security or infrastructure of the UK by
undermining the need to use the NCND approach to such requests
consistently.

Confirming or denying whether any information is held would dramatically
weaken MPS ability to safeguard national security in the fight against
terrorism or criminal behaviour on a local and national scale.

Irrespective of what information is or is not held, the public entrust the
Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety
and protection and the only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with
what is placed into the public domain. It therefore remains the case that
there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding our ability to
enforce the law and by extension maintain national security.

Whilst the MPS neither confirm nor deny whether any information is held in
respect of this request, the cumulative effect of terrorists or criminals
gathering information and intelligence from various sources would be even
more impactive when linked to other information gathered from various
sources about terrorism or criminality. The more information disclosed
over time gives a more detailed account of the tactical infrastructure of
not only the force area but also the country as a whole. Any incident that
results from such an adverse disclosure would by default affect national
security and is not in the public interest.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement

(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,

(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice
any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Evidence of Harm

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

FOIA is considered to be a release to the world as once the information is
published the public authority, in this case the MPS, has no control over
what use is made of that information.  Whilst not questioning the motives
of the applicant it could be deemed to be privacy intrusive and of use to
those who seek build up a mosaic picture of an individual’s employment
history.

To confirm or deny that individuals were members of the Association of
Chief Police Officers' Terrorism and Allied Matters (ACPO TAM) Committee
and carried out a specific role, could be used to identify or infer
whether individuals have worked in sensitive posts. Confirmation or denial
would have the effect of discouraging officers from applying for roles in
sensitive areas of policing if information of this nature were to be
confirmed.

The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored.  It should be recognised that
the international security landscape is increasingly complex and
unpredictable.  The UK faces a sustained threat from violent terrorists
and extremists.  Since 2006, the UK Government have published the threat
level, as set by the security service (MI5) based upon current
intelligence and that threat has remained at the second highest level,
‘severe’, except for two short periods during August 2006 and June and
July 2007, when it was raised to the highest threat, ‘critical’, and in
July 2009, when it was reduced to ‘substantial’. The current threat level
to the UK is ‘severe’.        The Home Office website explains that ‘this
means that a terrorist attack is highly likely’.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-ter...

In consideration of the ramifications of these threat levels, it would not
be wise to confirm or deny whether an individual was a member of a
national terrorism committee, as to do so could place them at risk of
physical or mental harm, through harassment and/or reprisals.

Information of this nature could be deemed to be of operational
sensitivity and confirmation or denial would allow those intent on causing
harm to police officers to build a biographical detail of an individual’s
employment history to determine whether they would make an ideal target.

In addition, to confirm or deny that the requested information is held
would prejudice law enforcement functions through compromising the work of
sensitive policing roles such as those relating to counter-terrorism,
firearms, protection, serious and organised crime and covert policing.  

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31 - Confirming or denying
whether the requested information is held would enhance the transparency
of the MPS.  To confirm or deny that named individuals were members of the
ACPO TAM Committee would provide an insight into the police service and
allow the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of
the police and the roles that its officers perform.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S31 - To confirm or deny
whether these named individuals were members of the ACPO TAM Committee
would discourage officers from applying to work in certain areas and make
them vulnerable to physical or mental harm.  Confirmation or denial could
also prejudice law enforcement functions by compromising specific
sensitive areas of policing.  

Those who are intent on causing harm to police officers (whether former or
current) would through a mosaic effect gather intelligence on officers to
determine through their employment history who was a more valuable target
for reprisals.

Overall Balance Test

When balancing the Public Interest Test we have to consider whether the
requested information should be confirmed or denied.  Arguments need to be
weighed against each other.  

By confirming or denying that information is held allows the public to
gain a greater understanding of the various roles a police officer can
perform and the type of decisions that are likely to be therefore made in
the course of their duties in the interests of national security.
 Increased awareness may enhance public confidence in the police.

However, to confirm or deny that individuals were members of the
Association of Chief Police Officers' Terrorism and Allied Matters
Committee and carried out a specific role, could harm the law enforcement
functions of the MPS by discouraging officers from applying for
operational sensitive roles.  Any disclosure of information, if held,
which both compromises the work of the MPS and could result in harm to an
individual cannot be in the public interest.  Whilst there is a public
interest in keeping everyone informed about security measures, there is
also a duty to ensure public safety.  To confirm or deny whether
individuals were members of a committee which dealt with terrorism-related
issues on a national level could be detrimental to any current or future
operations and could render security measures less effective.

It is for these reasons that the balance test favours neither confirmation
or denial.

Section 40 - Personal information

Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is designed to address
information that is covered by the Data Protection Act 1998.

Under section 40(5)(b)(i), the MPS is not required to comply with the
requirements of section 1(1)(a) i.e. the duty to inform the applicant
whether or not the information is held.
In reaching this decision the Information Commissioners own guidance
proved useful and I have attached the appropriate link for your
information and perusal.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

If held, any information would relate to  third parties, namely John
Grieve, Roy Clark, Alan Fry, John McDowell, William Mellish and Roger
Pearce and any acknowledgement as to whether or not pertinent information
is or is not held would, the MPS contends, breach Principal 1 of the Data
Protection Act 1998.  It is apparent from the wording of your request that
to acknowledge the existence of pertinent information it would directly
confirm whether the aforementioned individuals were members of the ACPO
TAM Committee.

It is also relevant to state that confirmation either way may be likely to
impair the ability of the MPS to protect personal data in relation to
similar requests for information in the future.

To the extent that the information requested would, if held, contain
personal data, the MPS is not required to confirm or deny whether such
information is held subject to the provisions of section 40(5)(b)(i) of
the Act.

Please note that the rationale presented above is in relation to the duty
to confirm whether the information requested is held by the MPS.

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

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 'Directors of Intelligence (SO11) - dates of service' - in particular, the refusal to provide information on whether or not the men named in the FOIA request were members of the ACPO TAM committee. I do not accept the decision as it is not uncommon for other police officers to have noted this, and I am now aware that previous documents have been released in relation to Roger Pearce indicating that he was active with ACPO TAM.

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

Yours faithfully,

Peter Salmon

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Salmon

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2017040000307

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to  2017020000255 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on  08/04/2017.  

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

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 Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

On 10 April 2017 I was promised an internal review of my request regarding Directors of Intelligence at the Metropolitan Police Service - your reference: 2017040000307. It is now October and I have yet to have a response to this. Please let me know where things stand with this review and when I can expect a response.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Salmon

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Salmon,

I have forwarded your email to the Information Manager currently dealing with your complaint, he should be in touch with a response to your query below.

Regards,

Kolsuma Sultana
Administrative Assistant | Freedom Of Information Triage Team | 
Strategy & Insight | Strategy & Governance | Met HQ | Metropolitan Police Service
Telephone: 0207 161 3500 (10am – 2pm) | Internal: 703510 | Email: [email address]
Address: Information Rights Unit, 3rd Floor, PO Box 57192, London, SW6 1SF

Protective Marking: RESTRICTED
Not Suitable for Publication:
Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will consider all information suitable for release unless there are valid and proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such. Further advice can be obtained from the Information Rights Unit - 020 7161 3500.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

It is now a month since I was promised a reply on my request for an internal review (you wrote back to me on 11 October on this - message is below. Can you please let me know when I may expect an answer. The full correspondence in this can be found at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...

Yours faithfully,

Peter Salmon
---message of 11 October 2017 ---
Dear Mr Salmon,

I have forwarded your email to the Information Manager currently dealing with your complaint, he should be in touch with a response to your query below.

Regards,

Kolsuma Sultana
Administrative Assistant | Freedom Of Information Triage Team |
Strategy & Insight | Strategy & Governance | Met HQ | Metropolitan Police Service
Telephone: 0207 161 3500 (10am – 2pm) | Internal: 703510 | Email: [email address]
Address: Information Rights Unit, 3rd Floor, PO Box 57192, London, SW6 1SF

Protective Marking: RESTRICTED
Not Suitable for Publication:
Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will consider all information suitable for release unless there are valid and proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such. Further advice can be obtained from the Information Rights Unit - 020 7161 3500.

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Salmon

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2017040000307

Further to our earlier correspondence dated 0/04/2017, I am now able to
provide a response to your complaint concerning Freedom of Information Act
(the Act) request reference number: 2017020000255.  I apologise on behalf
of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for the delay in providing you
with a response to your complaint.

Background to your complaint:

This review concentrates on the following request that you submitted to
the MPS on 06/02/2017:

1. The dates and rank the following officers were Directors & Deputy
Directors of Intelligence for the Metropolitan Police, namely as the
ranking officers heading up the SO11 OCU.

2. The period, if any, these officers were members of the Association of
Chief Police Officers' Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee, and any
roles they may have carried out (eg. Secretary, Vice Chair, project lead).

The officers are

a) John Grieve
b) Roy Clark, Deputy to John Grieve
c) Alan Fry
d) William Mellish, Deputy to Alan Fry
e) John McDowell
f) Roger Pearce

On 05/04/2017, we provided you with the information requested in question
1.

In respect of question 2, we neither confirmed nor denied that the
requested information was held by virtue of the following exemptions under
the Act:
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(5) - Personal Information

On 08/04/2017, you complained as follows:

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service
(MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'Directors of Intelligence (SO11) -
dates of service' - in particular, the refusal to provide information on
whether or not the men named in the FOIA request were members of the ACPO
TAM committee. I do not accept the decision as it is not uncommon for
other police officers to have noted this, and I am now aware that previous
documents have been released in relation to Roger Pearce indicating that
he was active with ACPO TAM.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to uphold its original decision.

REASON FOR DECISION

The duty to confirm or deny in regards to your request for information

The review can advise that section 1(1) (a) of the Act requires a public
authority to inform a requestor whether it holds the information specified
in the request.  This is known as the 'the duty to confirm or deny'. The
Information Commissioners Office (ICO) states, however, that 'there may be
occasions when complying with the duty to confirm or deny under section
1(1) (a) would itself disclose sensitive or potentially damaging
information that falls under an exemption...in these circumstances the Act
allows a public authority to respond by refusing to confirm or deny
whether it holds the requested information. This is called a 'neither
confirm nor deny' (NCND) response.'  

Additional ICO guidance can be found by way of the link below:

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

You have argued:

I do not accept the decision as it is not uncommon for other police
officers to have noted this, and I am now aware that previous documents
have been released in relation to Roger Pearce indicating that he was
active with ACPO TAM.

The review is mindful of the guidance provided by the ICO regarding having
a consistent approach with regards to NCND as confirming the level of
activity or otherwise in a specific area of policing is providing valuable
intelligence to those wishing to commit criminal offences and acts of
terrorism.

The use of NCND in a consistent manner is recognised in the ICO guidance
which states 'It can be important to use a neither confirm nor deny
response consistently, every time a certain type of information is
requested, regardless of whether the information is actually held or not.
For this reason public authorities need to be alert to the possibility of
receiving future requests for the same type of information when handling
very specific or detailed requests.'

This consistent approach is further commented upon by the ICO who states,
'There are situations where a public authority will need to use the
neither confirm nor deny response consistently over a series of separate
requests, regardless of whether it holds the requested information. This
is to prevent refusing to confirm or deny being taken as an indication of
whether information is held. Before complying with section 1(1) (a),
public authorities should consider both whether any harm would arise from
confirming that information is held and whether harm would arise from
stating that no information is held. Otherwise, if the same (or same type
of) requests were made on several occasions, a changing response could
reveal whether information was held.'

The review is guided by the ICO who states 'for many requests that public
authorities receive, their decision to use a neither confirm nor deny
response won't be affected by whether they do or don't in fact hold the
information. The starting point and main focus in most cases will be
theoretical considerations about the consequences of confirming or denying
that a particular type of information is held.' The ICO further reminds
public authorities that they can only refuse to confirm or deny whether it
holds the information, 'if this would itself reveal information that falls
under an exemption'.

Mosaic Effect:

The review takes due regard to your comment:
I am now aware that previous documents have been released in relation to
Roger Pearce indicating that he was active with ACPO TAM

FOIA disclosures are placed into the public domain. Disclosures which
appear harmless, pieced together with other disclosures can be used in a
'mosaic effect' to give a fuller picture to those wishing to evade
detection and / or gain valuable intelligence.

This 'cumulative prejudice' or the 'mosaic effect' whereby the information
requested may be of increased significance when combined with other
information obtained through other means and/or at a later date.  The
'mosaic' effect has been described as follows:

'The "mosaic theory" describes a basic precept of intelligence gathering:
Disparate items of information, though individually of limited or no
utility to their possessor, can take on added significance when combined
with other items of information. Combining the items illuminates their
interrelationships and breeds analytic synergies, so that the resulting
mosaic of information is worth more than the sum of its parts.' - Source:
David Pozen, The Mosaic Theory, National Security, and the Freedom of
Information Act, 115 Yale L. J. 628, 630 (2005).

The Information Commissioner's guidance in relation to Law Enforcement
acknowledges the harm that may be caused by the mosaic effect where it
states:

'Mosaic and precedent effects
21. The prejudice test is not limited to the harm that could be caused by
the requested information on its own. Account can be taken of any harm
likely to arise if the requested information were put together with other
information. This is commonly known as the 'mosaic effect'. As explained
in the Information Commissioner's guidance information in the public
domain, the mosaic effect usually considers the prejudice that would be
caused if the requested information was combined with information already
in the public domain.

22. However, some requests can set a precedent, ie complying with one
request would make it more difficult to refuse requests for to refuse
requests for similar information in the future. It is therefore
appropriate to consider any harm that would be caused by combining the
requested information with the information a public authority could be
forced to subsequently provide if the current requested was complied with.
This is known as the precedent effect.'

Modern technological advances, such as social media, data mining
techniques etc make it easier for individuals, either working
collaboratively or on their own, to connect disparate pieces of
information to form a picture that is more significant than its
constituent parts and/or co-ordinate activity across geographical space
and boundaries, in many cases anonymously. This has reduced the time and
costs required for individuals with criminal intent to research, plan and
conduct certain criminal acts and increased the risks associated with
information mosaics.
An individual with criminal intent is more likely to act upon a piece of
an information 'mosaic' if they have an official confirmation (as opposed
to mere speculation or estimate) of its accuracy. The boost in the
confidence of the accuracy of the information that would be provided by an
official confirmation is pertinent to the risk of harm in relation to a
confirmation or denial statement.
The ICO's Anonymisation Code of Practice in relation to the governance of
personal data states:
A joined up approach with other organisations in their sector or those
doing similar work. Organisations should seek to share information about
planned disclosures with other organisations, to assess risks of jigsaw
identification. For example it would be helpful for public authority A to
know that public authority B is also planning an anonymised disclosure at
the same time, one on health and one on welfare, both using similar
geographical units. They can then assess the risks collectively and agree
mitigation for both datasets.

https://ico.org.uk/media/1061/anonymisat...

The MPS will consult with other organisations to manage the risks
associated with jigsaw identification.

NCND - Personal Information

It is pertinent to note that the Freedom of Information Act is applicant
and motive blind. Any information disclosed under the Act is a disclosure
to the world at large and would be disclosed to any individual upon
request.  For this reason, a request under the Act is not a private
transaction.  Both the request itself, and any information which may be
disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication.  Therefore, when
considering whether information is suitable for disclosure, a public
authority is entitled to consider the effect of disclosure to any
individual.

To confirm or deny whether personal information exists in response to your
request could publicly reveal information about individual(s), thereby
breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data
Protection Act 1998.
Section 40(5)(b)(i) is applicable in circumstances where a confirmation or
denial in relation to whether information is held would breach one or more
of the data protection principles specified within the Data Protection Act
1998.
It is relevant to state that confirmation either way may be likely to
impair the ability of the MPS to protect personal data in relation to
similar requests for information in the future.

The MPS adopts an applicant blind and motive blind approach with a
presumption of disclosure when dealing with FoIA requests. However, it is
legitimate for the MPS to consider the harm in disclosure to any member of
the public.
For the MPS to confirm or deny whether information is held would disclose
to the world at large whether a particular individual(s) was a member of
ACPO TAM performing a specific role. This is particularly pertinent in
this case in view of the area of policing the named individuals worked
within the MPS, namely in SO11.

The MPS takes due regard to the following from our original response to
you:

If held, any information would relate to third parties, namely John
Grieve, Roy Clark, Alan Fry, John McDowell, William Mellish and Roger
Pearce and any acknowledgement as to whether or not pertinent information
is or is not held would, the MPS contends, breach Principal 1 of the Data
Protection Act 1998.  It is apparent from the wording of your request that
to acknowledge the existence of pertinent information it would directly
confirm whether the aforementioned individuals were members of the ACPO
TAM Committee.  

Where a confirmation or denial statement could relate to an identifiable
individual, ICO guidance titled 'Determining what is personal data' may be
relevant which in part states:

"When considering identifiability it should be assumed that you are not
looking just at the means reasonably likely to be used by the ordinary man
in the street, but also the means that are likely to be used by a
determined person with a particular reason to want to identify
individuals. Examples would include investigative journalists, estranged
partners, stalkers, or industrial spies."

The ICO's 'When to refuse to confirm or deny information is held' guidance
further states:

'It is sufficient to demonstrate that either a hypothetical confirmation
or denial would engage the exemption. In other words, it is not necessary
to show that both confirming and denying information is held would engage
the exemption from complying with section 1(1)(a).'

'When considering what a confirmation or denial would reveal, a public
authority isn't limited to considering what the public may learn from such
a response; if it can demonstrate that a confirmation or denial would be
revealing to someone with more specialist knowledge, this is enough to
engage the exclusion to confirm or deny.

Policing information attracts interest from a range of people who are not
necessarily motivated by the public interest. The clearest example would
be serious and organised criminals who have an interest in ascertaining
the relative strengths and/or weaknesses of law enforcement organisations
and investigations with a view to avoiding detection or prosecution.

The United Nations 'Report of the Working Group on Countering the Use of
the Internet for Terrorist Purposes' cites examples of terrorist attacks
that were facilitated by access to information available on the Internet
and states the following in relation to data mining:

'15. Three States wrote that they considered data mining on the Internet
to be an important use of the medium by terrorists or for terrorist
purposes. The Al-Qaida terrorist manual captured in Afghanistan notes that
'using sources openly available, it is possible to gather at least 80 per
cent of all information acquired about the enemy.'

Serious organised criminals are highly motivated due to the large
financial gains that can be made from illegal activities. Terrorist and
extremists may also be highly motivated due to the strength of their
beliefs. The MPS may also receive requests from individuals serving a
prison sentence who may also have the time and inclination to seek to
identify personal information that may be held by the MPS.

Other members of the public such as members of campaign groups,
journalists and individuals with private grievances may also have the time
and the inclination to attempt to identify or infer personal data from
FoIA disclosures.

The MPS need to be alert to requests that assume certain facts that may or
may not be accurate and/or appropriate to confirm or deny.  For example, a
request asking for 'a copy of an individual's employment and discipline
history' would appear to relate to personal data.

Such information, if held is likely to relate to the named individual in a
private capacity and may be exempt from disclosure under section 40(2).
However, the question is predicated upon confirming whether or not a named
individual has been employed by the MPS.  This may be unfair in the
circumstances. Furthermore, similar requests over time would enable
individuals to create a database of MPS employees. The MPS employs
individuals in covert and non-public facing roles and it may be
inappropriate to confirm such individuals work for the MPS. Likewise, the
MPS may receive speculative requests relating to named individuals who do
not work for the MPS. If the MPS conformed that they did not work for the
MPS this may weaken an NCND response in relation to similar requests where
information is held. This may be of particular significance for those
working in covert roles.

Due to the remit of the MPS, asking whether the MPS holds information on a
particular individual, group or organisation often amounts to asking
whether:
"        there is or has been an investigation
"        the MPS have a particular interest in a group and/or related
individuals
"        a particular individual has been the victim, informant or witness
"        a particular individual is suspected of an offence

If the MPS were to confirm information is held, this may enable potential
criminals to adapt their behaviour to avoid detection by law enforcement
and constitute sensitive personal data

If the MPS were to confirm when information is not held, over time it
would be possible to deduce whose information is held by the MPS if the
MPS were to issue an NCND response only when information is held

If the MPS confirmed that no information were held and then subsequently
held information relating to the named group/individual, the timing of any
change in response could be significant, especially when combined with
existing knowledge or other information. For example, the reason for
police interest could be inferred by those with personal knowledge of the
relevant data subjects and their activities.

MPS Reliance on Section 24(2) - National Security

The review takes note of the evidence of harm provided to you in response
to your request:

To disclose the requested information, if held, would allow interested
parties to gain an upper hand and awareness of policing decisions used to
safeguard national security. As you may be aware, disclosure under FOIA is
a release to the public at large. Therefore, by confirming in the public
domain whether these individuals were members of the ACPO TAM Committee
performing specific roles, could potentially be misused proving
detrimental to national security.

The ICO emphasises there is no definition of national security and refers
to the Information Tribunal (EA/2006/0045) who summarises:

 "National security" means the security of the United Kingdom and its
people;
The interests of national security are not limited to actions by an
individual which are targeted at the UK, its system of government or its
people;
The protection of democracy and the legal and constitutional systems of
the state are part of national security as well as military defence;
Action against a foreign state may be capable indirectly of affecting the
security of the UK;
Reciprocal co-operation between the UK and other states in combating
international terrorism is capable of promoting the United Kingdom's
national security.

The review notes that Section 24(2) is engaged only if the refusal to
confirm or deny is required for the purposes of safeguarding national
security.  As mentioned above, whilst national security is not defined
under the Freedom of Information Act, it does include the security of the
United Kingdom and its people.  

MPS Reliance on Section 31(3) - Law enforcement

Section 31(3) of the Act states the duty to confirm or deny does not arise
if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would
be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
Further reference can be found by way of this link:

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guid...

Confirmation or denial is possible when doing so would not reveal
indications of relevant law enforcement tactics.  However in this case
confirming or denying whether information is or is not held would result
in an adverse effect, by providing those individuals who would wish to
cause harm with invaluable intelligence, which would compromise the police
service function in the prevention and detection of crime.
In this regard the review takes note of the initial response and the
factors favouring confirmation or denial by virtue of section 31(3),
namely:

Confirming or denying whether the requested information is held would
enhance the transparency of the MPS.  To confirm or deny that named
individuals were members of the ACPO TAM Committee would provide an
insight into the police service and allow the public to have a better
understanding of the effectiveness of the police and the roles that its
officers perform.

The review also has regard for the factors against confirmation or denial
by virtue of section 31(3), namely:

To confirm or deny that individuals were members of the Association of
Chief Police Officers' Terrorism and Allied Matters (ACPO TAM) Committee
and carried out a specific role, could be used to identify or infer
whether individuals have worked in sensitive posts. Confirmation or denial
would have the effect of discouraging officers from applying for roles in
sensitive areas of policing if information of this nature were to be
confirmed.

The review is in agreement that there would be an adverse effect in
confirming or denying that the requested information is held as this would
provide those individuals who would wish to cause harm with invaluable
intelligence.

Access to information is essential to democratic discourse and open and
informed debate.  The disclosure of information facilitates transparency
and accountability and may increase citizens' empowerment and
participation in society.  However, for the reasons explained above, the
review believes that the balance of the public interest in this instance
favours exempting the information you have requested by virtue of Section
31 Law Enforcement.

Conclusion

The review hopes the explanation provides clarity around why Section
24(2), 40(5) and 31(3) exemptions are valid in this case

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: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org