Gagging Orders on Senior Met Officers

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

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

It has been reported in the national press earlier this year that
two former, very senior, officers in the Met resigned over issues
related to the phone hacking scandals.

It is further reported that, even though we are in austere times
and the Met has to make swingeing cuts to its budget, the pair were
paid off with £500,000 between them on condition that they did not
speak of this arrangement.

My request under the Freedom of Information Act is this

1) Please supply me with copies of all papers i.e. minutes of
meetings etc relating to the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson and
Assistant Commissioner John Yates, insomuch as those papers relate
to discussions about any 'Golden Handshake' deal in relation to
both or either of them.

2) How many senior officers in the Met, current or resigned/retired
above the rank of Chief Inspector are subject to such, similar,
'Gagging Orders' or similar agreements? For the avoidance of doubt
I am specifically NOT requesting names or circumstances, just a
total number, broken down by rank if that is possible.

Yours faithfully,

Alan Wright

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012070003064
I respond in connection with your request for information dated 24/07/2012
which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/07/2012.
 I note you seek access to the following information:

It has been reported in the national press earlier this year that two
former, very senior, officers in the Met resigned over issues     related
to the phone hacking scandals.        
It is further reported that, even though we are in austere times and the
Met has to make swingeing cuts to its budget, the pair were     paid off
with £500,000 between them on condition that they did not speak of this
arrangement.
         
My request under the Freedom of Information Act is this        
1) Please supply me with copies of all papers i.e. minutes of meetings etc
relating to the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson and     Assistant
Commissioner John Yates, insomuch as those papers relate to discussions
about any 'Golden Handshake' deal in relation to both or either of them.  
     
2) How many senior officers in the Met, current or resigned/retired above
the rank of Chief Inspector are subject to such, similar,     'Gagging
Orders' or similar agreements?
For the avoidance of doubt I am specifically NOT requesting names or
circumstances, just a total number, broken down by rank if that is
possible.    

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 on telephone number 020 7230 4019 quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Royan-Posse
Case Investigation Officer
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012070003064

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 24/07/2012
which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/07/2012.
 I note you seek access to the following information:

It has been reported in the national press earlier this year that two
former, very senior, officers in the Met resigned over issues     related
to the phone hacking scandals.        
It is further reported that, even though we are in austere times and the
Met has to make swingeing cuts to its budget, the pair were     paid off
with £500,000 between them on condition that they did not speak of this
arrangement.
         
My request under the Freedom of Information Act is this        
1) Please supply me with copies of all papers i.e. minutes of meetings etc
relating to the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson and     Assistant
Commissioner John Yates, insomuch as those papers relate to discussions
about any 'Golden Handshake' deal in relation to both or either of them.  
     
2) How many senior officers in the Met, current or resigned/retired above
the rank of Chief Inspector are subject to such, similar,     'Gagging
Orders' or similar agreements?

For the avoidance of doubt I am specifically NOT requesting names or
circumstances, just a total number, broken down by rank if that is
possible.

This is to inform you that I cannot identify any specific records /
documents that will satisfy your request based on the details you have
provided.  To enable the MPS to meet your request could you please provide
this office with further information.  
I provide some guidance that may assist you more clearly describe the
information you require:

Q1) Could you please clarify the term 'Golden Handshake'?
Q2) Could you please clarify the term 'Gagging Order'?
Q2) Over what time period does this question relate to?

Compensation for loss of office is published by the MPS.
The compensation paid to Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and Assistant
Commissioner John Yates for loss of office may be found on page 39 of this
report.
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/what_w...

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of
20 working days, subject to the information not being exempt or containing
a reference to a third party.

However, if the requested additional information has not been received by
04/09/2012 I will assume you no longer wish to proceed with this request
and will treat it as withdrawn.

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 on telephone number 020 7230 4019 quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Royan-Posse
Case Investigation Officer
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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 Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012070003064

In response to your request for clarification of my request

Q1) Could you please clarify the term 'Golden Handshake'? - Any amount of money agreed as payment in exchange for Early Retirement etc

Q2) Could you please clarify the term 'Gagging Order'? - Any agreement voluntary or imposed by a Court not to divulge the terms of any settlement etc

Q3) Over what time period does this question relate to? - How many are 'Currently' in place i.e. effective now.

Yours faithfully,

Alan Wright

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

    Dear Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012070003064

I respond in connection with your redefined request for information dated
06/08/2012 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on
06/08/2012.  I note you seek access to the following information:

It has been reported in the national press earlier this year that two
former, very senior, officers in the Met resigned over issues     related
to the phone hacking scandals.        
It is further reported that, even though we are in austere times and the
Met has to make swingeing cuts to its budget, the pair were     paid off
with £500,000 between them on condition that they did not speak of this
arrangement.
         
My request under the Freedom of Information Act is this        
1) Please supply me with copies of all papers i.e. minutes of meetings etc
relating to the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson and     Assistant
Commissioner John Yates, insomuch as those papers relate to discussions
about any 'Golden Handshake' deal in relation to both or either of them.
NB ' Golden Handshake' any amount of money agreed as payment in exchange
for Early Retirement etc.
       
2) How many senior officers in the Met, current or resigned/retired above
the rank of Chief Inspector are currently subject to such, similar,
'Gagging Orders' or similar agreements?
NB 'Gagging Order' any agreement voluntary or imposed by a Court not to
divulge the terms of any settlement etc.

For the avoidance of doubt I am specifically NOT requesting names or
circumstances, just a total number, broken down by rank if that is
possible.

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 on telephone number 020 7230 4019 quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Royan-Posse
Case Investigation Officer
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012070003064

I respond in connection with your redefined request for information dated
06/08/2012 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on
06/08/2012.  I note you seek access to the following information:

It has been reported in the national press earlier this year that two
former, very senior, officers in the Met resigned over issues related to
the phone hacking scandals.        
It is further reported that, even though we are in austere times and the
Met has to make swingeing cuts to its budget, the pair were     paid off
with £500,000 between them on condition that they did not speak of this
arrangement.
         
My request under the Freedom of Information Act is this        
1) Please supply me with copies of all papers i.e. minutes of meetings etc
relating to the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson and     Assistant
Commissioner John Yates, insomuch as those papers relate to discussions
about any 'Golden Handshake' deal in relation to both or either of them.
NB ' Golden Handshake' any amount of money agreed as payment in exchange
for Early Retirement etc.
       
2) How many senior officers in the Met, current or resigned/retired above
the rank of Chief Inspector are currently subject to such, similar,
'Gagging Orders' or similar agreements?
NB 'Gagging Order' any agreement voluntary or imposed by a Court not to
divulge the terms of any settlement etc.

For the avoidance of doubt I am specifically NOT requesting names or
circumstances, just a total number, broken down by rank if that is
possible.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated and as a result we
will not be able to respond within 20 working days.

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 17/09/2012

I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.

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 020 7230 4019 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Royan-Posse
Case Investigation Officer
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012070003064

I respond in connection with your redefined request for information dated
06/08/2012 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on
06/08/2012.  I note you seek access to the following information:

It has been reported in the national press earlier this year that two
former, very senior, officers in the Met resigned over issues related to
the phone hacking scandals.        
It is further reported that, even though we are in austere times and the
Met has to make swingeing cuts to its budget, the pair were     paid off
with £500,000 between them on condition that they did not speak of this
arrangement.
         
My request under the Freedom of Information Act is this        
1) Please supply me with copies of all papers i.e. minutes of meetings etc
relating to the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson and     Assistant
Commissioner John Yates, insomuch as those papers relate to discussions
about any 'Golden Handshake' deal in relation to both or either of them.
NB ' Golden Handshake' any amount of money agreed as payment in exchange
for Early Retirement etc.
       
2) How many senior officers in the Met, current or resigned/retired above
the rank of Chief Inspector are currently subject to such, similar,
'Gagging Orders' or similar agreements?
NB 'Gagging Order' any agreement voluntary or imposed by a Court not to
divulge the terms of any settlement etc.

For the avoidance of doubt I am specifically NOT requesting names or
circumstances, just a total number, broken down by rank if that is
possible.

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

RESULT OF SEARCHES

In Q1 you ask
Please supply me with copies of all papers i.e. minutes of meetings etc
relating to the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson and Assistant
Commissioner John Yates, insomuch as those papers relate to discussions
about any 'Golden Handshake' deal in relation to both or either of them.
NB ' Golden Handshake' any amount of money agreed as payment in exchange
for Early Retirement etc.
The MPS response is:
The searches failed to locate any information relevant to your request,
therefore the information you have requested is not held by the MPS.
Upon leaving the MPS, individuals may have entered into discussions with
the Metropolitan Police Authority regarding their contractual position and
recompense.
The MPA has been replaced by Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime
(MOPAC).
MOPAC may be contacted at:
[email address]
or by post to
Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime
Information Team
10 Dean Farrar Street
London SW1H ONY

In Q2 you ask
How many senior officers in the Met, current or resigned/retired above the
rank of Chief Inspector are currently subject to such, similar, 'Gagging
Orders' or similar agreements?
NB 'Gagging Order' any agreement voluntary or imposed by a Court not to
divulge the terms of any settlement etc.
The MPS response is:
In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), this
response represents a Refusal Notice for this particular question under
Section 17(1).  

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act that are referred
to in this letter.

The Metropolitan Police Service neither confirms nor denies that it holds
the information you requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Act
does not apply by virtue of the following exemption:

Section 40(5) - Personal Information / Absolute Exemption

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

To confirm or deny whether personal information exists in response to your
request could publicly reveal information about an individual or
individuals, thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons
under the Data Protection Act 1998.
When confirming or denying that information is held would breach an
individual's rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, Section 40(5)
becomes an absolute exemption, and there is no requirement for me to
provide evidence of the prejudice that would occur, or to conduct a public
interest test.

Please note this notice does not confirm or deny that the MPS holds the
information that you have requested.

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 on telephone number 020 7230 4019 quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Royan-Posse
Case Investigation Officer

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 1(1) of the Act provides:
(1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is
entitled-
(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds
information of the description specified in the request, and
(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

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

Section 40(5) of the Act provides:

(5)  The duty to confirm or deny-
(a) does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held
by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of
subsection (1), and
(b) does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent
that either-
(i) the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial
that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart
from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section
10 of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the
exemptions in section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or
(ii) by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the [1998 c. 29.] Data
Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that
Act (data subject's right to be informed whether personal data being
processed).

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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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 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 'Gagging Orders on Senior Met Officers'.

[ I accept your answer to Question 1, because I have to. You have answered my question and I have no reason to believe that answer is in any way inaccurate. Question 2, however, is a different matter. Included as part of my question was the following sentence

"For the avoidance of doubt I am specifically NOT requesting names or circumstances, just a total number, broken down by rank if that is possible."

It should be clear from this sentence that the answer I am hoping for is simply in the form of a number. I do not understand how that constitutes Personal Information, which is the basis for your Refusal to issue me with an answer to the question. I must, reluctantly, ask you to conduct an Internal Review into the handling of this request. I will repeat my assertion that I am NOT seeking to obtain Personal Information, merely a number. If you persist with your claim that this constitutes Personal Information maybe you would be so kind as to explain to me how this is so.]

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

Yours faithfully,

Alan Wright

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012090001772

I write in connection with your request for a review of the original MPS
decision relating to 2012070003064 which was received by the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS) on 17/09/2012.  

Your request for a review will now be considered in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response to
your request for a review of the original MPS case within a timescale of
20 working days.  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.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Policy and Support Officer
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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 Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012090001772

I note that your response to my request for an Internal Review is seriously late. I have had no correspondence from you in relation to this matter since September 2012, a fact that I find totally unacceptable. Could you please inform me of the results of your Internal Review without further delay in order that I may raise this issue with the Information Commissioner if appropriate.

Yours faithfully,

Alan Wright

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Hello, you have reached the email for Peter Deja at the Public Access
Office, I am out of the office  now - . I will be back in the office on
Tuesday 29 January 2013. For  assistance please telephone 0207 161 3500.

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. Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012090001772

I write in connection with your correspondence dated 17th September 2012
requesting that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response
to your request for information redefined on the 6th August 2012
(reference 2012070003064). I would firstly like to offer our apologies for
the time taken to complete this review, clearly it is our responsibility
as a public body that we are able to comply with the guidance put forward
by the Information Commissioner on completing internal reviews within a
maximum of forty working days. On this occasion we have not and I can only
apologise in that regard.  Please find below a response to your complaint.
 

Request for information

It has been reported in the national press earlier this year that two
former, very senior, officers in the Met resigned over issues related to
the phone hacking scandals.   It is further reported that, even though we
are in austere times and the Met has to make swingeing cuts to its budget,
the pair were paid off with £500,000 between them on condition that they
did not speak of this arrangement.
         
My request under the Freedom of Information Act is this      
 
1) Please supply me with copies of all papers i.e. minutes of meetings etc
relating to the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson and Assistant
Commissioner John Yates, insomuch as those papers relate to discussions
about any 'Golden Handshake' deal in relation to both or either of them.

NB ' Golden Handshake' any amount of money agreed as payment in exchange
for Early Retirement etc.
       
2) How many senior officers in the Met, current or resigned/retired above
the rank of Chief Inspector are currently subject to such, similar,
'Gagging Orders' or similar agreements?

NB 'Gagging Order' any agreement voluntary or imposed by a Court not to
divulge the terms of any settlement etc.

For the avoidance of doubt I am specifically NOT requesting names or
circumstances, just a total number, broken down by rank if that is
possible.

MPS Response (summarised)

Q1: The searches failed to locate any information relevant to your
request, therefore the information you have requested is not held by the
MPS.

Upon leaving the MPS, individuals may have entered into discussions with
the Metropolitan Police Authority regarding their contractual position and
recompense.
The MPA has been replaced by Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime
(MOPAC).

 Q2:  The Metropolitan Police Service neither confirms nor denies that it
holds the information you requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the
Act does not apply by virtue of the following exemption: Section 40(5) -
Personal Information / Absolute Exemption

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

To confirm or deny whether personal information exists in response to your
request could publicly reveal information about an individual or
individuals, thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons
under the Data Protection Act 1998.
When confirming or denying that information is held would breach an
individual's rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, Section 40(5)
becomes an absolute exemption, and there is no requirement for me to
provide evidence of the prejudice that would occur, or to conduct a public
interest test.

Please note this notice does not confirm or deny that the MPS holds the
information that you have requested.

Request for Review of initial MPS response

I accept your answer to Question 1, because I have to. You have answered
my question and I have no reason to believe that answer is in any way
inaccurate.

Question 2, however, is a different matter. Included as part of my
question was the following sentence "For the avoidance of doubt I am
specifically NOT requesting names or circumstances, just a total number,
broken down by rank if that is possible."

It should be clear from this sentence that the answer I am hoping for is
simply in the form of a number. I do not understand how that constitutes
Personal Information, which is the basis for your Refusal to issue me with
an answer to the question. I must, reluctantly, ask you to conduct an
Internal Review into the handling of this request. I will repeat my
assertion that I am NOT seeking to obtain Personal Information, merely a
number. If you persist with your claim that this constitutes Personal
Information maybe you would be so kind as to explain to me how this is so.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to uphold the original decision to neither confirm nor deny
information is or is not held by virtue of section 40(5) Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FoIA) - Personal information.

Further details of the FoIA can be found by way of this link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Reason for decision in regards to how a number might constitute
information

In regards to your comment ‘It should be clear from this sentence that the
answer I am hoping for is simply in the form of a number. I do not
understand how that constitutes Personal Information’ and can advise you
that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued a Code of
Practice on anonymisation in the context of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA) and FoIA
(http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/...)
This guidance states ‘the primary reason for undertaking anonymisation is
to protect individuals’ privacy when making available the data
resources…anonymisation helps organisations to comply with their data
protection obligations whilst enabling them to make information available
to the public…’  

The ICO further advises:

·        The concept of ‘identify’ - and therefore of ‘anonymise’ - is not
straightforward because individuals can be identified in a number of
different ways. This can include direct identification, where someone is
explicitly identifiable from a single data source, such as a list
including full names, and indirect identification, where two or more data
sources need to be combined for identification to take place; and

·        You may be satisfied that the data your organisation intends to
release does not, in itself, identify anyone.  However, in some cases you
may not know whether other data is available that means that
re-identification by a third party is likely to take place.

Therefore returning to your original comment ‘I am specifically NOT
requesting names or circumstances, just a total number…’ I understand that
the information taking on it own, i.e. X senior officer(s) in the Met,
current or resigned/retired above the rank of Chief Inspector, may not
reveal personal data, if held.   However, this taken together with
information that may already be in the public domain may be able to be
pieced together which would result in links being between the information
and individuals, leading to subsequent identifications or
mis-identifications. This is because although you have requested a number
only , together with rank if possible, they relate to one group of
individual(s), and as you have further narrowed your request to include
currently subject to such, similar, 'Gagging Orders' or similar agreements
there is a heightened chance that someone could be identified, if held.
 Should the MPS disclose the information, if held, this could potentially
allow an individual to make links to related information in order to try
and identify an individual.  It can be seen then that by merely providing
information, if held, in the form of a number could lead to the
re-identification of individual(s).  

Please note that this explanation does not confirm or deny that
information is or is not held by the MPS in regards to your request.

Reason for decision in regards to your original request for information

I thought that it might assist you if I remind you of the legislation set
out by the Freedom of Information Act within which a request for
information can be answered. The FoIA 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 that public authority holds
the requested information and, if so, then communicate that information to
the applicant.

This 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 unsuitable 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.  Any information released
is also placed on the MPS FoIA Disclosure Log which can be found via this
link: http://www.met.police.uk/foi/disclosure/...

The duty to confirm or deny

Section 1(1) (a) of FoIA 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 Commissioner’s
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:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/...

The ICO also directs public authorities towards the wording of a request -
‘the exact wording of the request for information is an important
consideration when deciding whether a public authority should confirm or
deny if it holds the requested information.  The more specific the
request, the more likely it is that a public authority will need to give a
neither confirm nor deny response’.  In this respect you have specifically
requested information concerning agreements made concerning senior
officers in the Met, current or resigned/retired above the rank of Chief
Inspector. The MPS initial response states ‘To confirm or deny whether
personal information exists in response to your request could publicly
reveal information about an individual or individuals, thereby breaching
the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act
1998.’

Section 40(5) - Personal Information

The review is guided by Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Decision
Notice FS50300474 (
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...
) as to whether the decision is correct to neither confirm nor deny that
information is held. The considerations by the ICO were firstly, would
confirming or denying whether information is held constitute a disclosure
of personal data? If so, whose personal data?  Secondly, would confirming
or denying whether information is held contravene any of the data
protection principles?

Would confirming or denying whether information is held constitute the
disclosure of personal data? If so, whose personal data?

The review takes note of your comment in your original request ‘For the
avoidance of doubt I am specifically NOT requesting names or
circumstances, just a total number, broken down by rank if that is
possible.’ In this regard I can advise that personal data is defined in
section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act (DPA) as: “data which relate to a
living individual who can be identified-
(a) from those data, or (b) from those data and other information which is
in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the
data controller, and includes any expression of opinion about the
individual and any indication of the intention of the data controller or
any other person in respect of the individual”.

ICO guidance points to the two main elements of personal data in that the
information must “relate to” a living person and that person must be
identifiable. Information will “relate to” a person if it is about them,
linked to them, has some biographical significance for them, is used to
inform decisions affecting them, has them as its main focus or impacts on
them in any way. The MPS is therefore satisfied that confirming or denying
whether information is held would constitute the disclosure of personal
data of those individuals referred to in your original request.  

Would confirming or denying whether information is held contravene any of
the data protection principles?

The MPS has found that the first data protection principle to be the
relevant in this case, which states ‘Personal data shall be processed
fairly and lawfully and in particular shall not be processed unless  a) at
least one of the conditions in DPA schedule 2 is met, and
b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions
in schedule 3 is also met’.

I will go on to consider the MPS position in this case that to confirm or
deny whether personal information exists in response to your request could
publicly reveal information about an individual or individuals, thereby
breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data
Protection Act 1998. When confirming or denying that information is held
would breach an individual's rights under the Data Protection Act 1998,
Section 40(5) becomes an absolute exemption, and there is no requirement
for me to provide evidence of the prejudice that would occur, or to
conduct a public interest test.  

The review takes note of your comment ‘I will repeat my assertion that I
am NOT seeking to obtain Personal Information, merely a number. If you
persist with your claim that this constitutes Personal Information maybe
you would be so kind as to explain to me how this is so.’  In this regard
when formulating the Freedom of Information Act legislators recognised
that public disclosure of personal information would be contrary to the
principles of the Data Protection Act.  Therefore an exemption was written
at Section 40 which relates to Personal Information.  

The principle of ‘neither confirm nor deny’ is long established, and it is
recognised that in some circumstances simply confirming or denying whether
requested information was held could itself disclose sensitive and
 damaging information.  This fact was itself recognised by the legislators
- all exemptions except section 21 (information accessible by other means)
include a provision which enable public authorities to neither confirm nor
deny that it holds the requested information in certain situations.  This
principle is explained below:
 
Person (A) makes an FOI request to receive all the information about their
arrest for Theft. This information would not simply be personal data, but
would be classed as sensitive personal data.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the authority can reply in four
ways:

1.        They do not hold any information, so they say 'no information
held'.
2.        They hold information, and they disclose it.
3.        They hold information, but they recognise it is an individual's
personal
            data, and they apply the Section 40 (2) exemption.
4.        They neither confirm nor deny that they hold the information
using
            Section 40(5).

If the authority responds by following either Option 1, 2 or 3, they have
breached the privacy rights of Person (A) afforded to them by the Data
Protection Act. This is because they have openly revealed whether or not
Person (A) has an arrest history. Under FoIA, any response or disclosure
is released to the world, and this would allow other people to identify
Person (A). Responding as per either Option 1 or 2 reveals whether or not
Person (A) has been arrested. In Option 3, even though the actual details
of the arrest are not disclosed (because section 40 (2) is used to
withhold the information), by doing this, the authority has confirmed that
the information requested does exist. By exempting the information, they
have confirmed that Person (A) was arrested, and in this way the authority
has breached Person (A)'s rights under the Data Protection Act.

Therefore, when a request for such details is received by a public
authority and the details have not already been made public, the
appropriate response for the authority to give is one that protects an
individual's rights under the Data Protection Act - in the example above
by neither confirming nor denying that the information exists. This
principle would also be appropriate to requests seeking confirmation of
whether individuals have been subject to any agreement as mentioned in
your request, as to indicate as such whether they had or had not, would
similarly breach their rights to privacy.

Further guidance on this principle has been provided by the Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which can be found via this link:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/...

In this case, by confirming or denying information in relation to How many
senior officers in the Met, current or resigned/retired above the rank of
Chief Inspector are currently subject to such, similar, 'Gagging Orders'
or similar agreements  would lead to the potential identification, or
mis-identification, of individuals.  It could identify whether an
individual had been the subject of such an agreement. Therefore, in these
circumstances, to confirm or deny whether the MPS hold the information
that you have requested could lead to public inferences as to whom, if
anyone, had such an agreement.

I hope the explanation provided clarifies why on this occasion the MPS
maintains its stance to neither confirm nor deny that information is or is
not held in regards to your request by virtue of section 40(5) - personal
Information.

Please note, this notice does not confirm or deny that the MPS holds the
information that you have requested.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 161 3605 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
FOIA Quality and Assurance Advisor

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