Investigation Report

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

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please provide a copy of the report of the 1987 investigation, codenamed Operation Russell

Yours faithfully,

Jon Tucker

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Tucker

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2013090000768
I write in connection with your request for information  which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 05/09/2013.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

* Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), Please provide a copy of the
report of the 1987 investigation, codenamed Operation Russell

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
write or contact  [..........]  quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

FOIA team
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think
the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision
of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS
to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days
from the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied
with the decision you may make application to the Information
Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has
been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.  Alternatively, phone or write to:

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

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

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Tucker,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2013090000768

I write in response to your request for information that was received by
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 05 September 2013.  I note that
you seek access to the following information:

* A copy of the report of the 1987 investigation, codenamed Operation
Russell.

When a request is made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the
Act), a public authority must inform you, when permitted, whether the
information requested is held. It must then communicate that information
to you. If a public authority decides that it cannot comply with all or
part of a request, it must cite the appropriate section or exemption of
the Act and provide you with a suitable explanation. It is important to
note that 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.

Following receipt of your request, I have conducted searches to locate
information relevant to your request. I can confirm that I have located
the Operation Russell investigating officer's final report.
Decision
Having considered the requested report, I have found that this report is
exempt from release under the Act. This email serves as a refusal notice
under Section 17(1) of the Act.

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."

In considering the requested report for release under the Act, I have
found that two exemptions apply to information contained within the
report.

Under the Act, there are two types of exemption that can be claimed with
regard to information considered unsuitable for public release. These
exemptions are referred to as absolute exemptions and qualified
exemptions.

When an absolute exemption is claimed in respect of information considered
exempt under the Act, a public authority is not required to consider
whether release of that information is in the 'public interest'.

When a qualified exemption is claimed in respect of information considered
exempt under the Act, a public authority must establish whether the
'public interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested
information.  The public interest is determined by conducting a 'Public
Interest Test' (PIT).

Both absolute and qualified exemptions can be further divided into
class-based or prejudice-based exemptions.

Class-based exemptions are those in which it is assumed the disclosure of
information would result in harm. There is therefore no requirement to
demonstrate what that harm may be.
Prejudiced-based exemptions are those where firstly, it is necessary to
establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that may result from disclosure
and secondly, if prejudice/harm is not certain, the likelihood of
prejudice/harm must be determined.

Please find explanation below of the exemptions I rely upon under the Act.
Section 40 (2)(a)(b) & (3)(a)(i) - Personal Information: Absolute
Exemption/Class Based
Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information where its release would identify any living
individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA). I have claimed this exemption in that the information requested
constitutes the personal and sensitive personal data of former Commander
Ray Adams and other persons concerned in this investigation where release
would be in breach of the rights provided to them by the DPA.

The eight principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers
must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data
must be processed fairly and lawfully. When a request for information is
made that is reliant upon the release of personal and/or sensitive
personal data to satisfy that request, the release of that data must be
fair, lawful and in the case of personal data, meet one of the conditions
of Schedule 2 of the DPA. In the case of sensitive personal data, a
condition of Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of the DPA must be met.

In assessing your request, I have carefully considered whether release of
the personal/sensitive personal data requested would be fair. In doing so,
I have examined:

a. The nature of the information requested.
b. Whether the information requested is in the public domain.
c. The legitimate interests of the public in receiving the requested
information.
d. The reasonable expectations of Ray Adams and other third parties
involved in this case.
e. The possible consequences of disclosure.

The requested report broadly contains three types of personal data:

1. Investigations into allegations that concern the alleged conduct of Ray
Adams.
2. Investigations into allegations that concern the conduct of third
parties.
3. The personal data of other persons concerned in this investigation
(i.e. those that provided information to police or are concerned in the
investigation).

It is a matter of public record that former Commander Ray Adams and a
number of other persons (including a number of police officers) were
investigated in relation to allegations of corruption in 1987. It is also
in the public domain that the investigation did not result in any criminal
or misconduct proceedings. Whilst these basic facts are in the public
domain, it should be noted that the detail of the allegations investigated
have not been made available to the public to date of your request.

In considering whether it is appropriate to release the requested personal
information, the case for and against releasing the detail of the
allegations made and the extent of the police investigation must be
examined. Clearly there is an arguable public interest in making this
information available to the general public. Firstly, when considering the
allegations made about former Commander Adams, there is public interest to
be satisfied in transparency given the officer's rank and position with
the MPS. This is important as, in broad terms, the greater the
responsibility of a public official, the greater the need for
transparency. This is particularly the case when the requested information
relates to a public official's conduct whilst in office. The case for
transparency is therefore a significant factor when considering release
and is most relevant to former Commander Adams as the most senior officer
subject to this investigation.

The case for transparency must be balanced against the case for
withholding the requested information. In particular, the reasonable
expectations of those subject to the investigation must be taken into
account as must the possible consequences of release.

Operation Russell was an investigation into allegations of corruption in
1987. At the time of this investigation, there was no Freedom of
Information Act or equivalent legislation in place. This is important in
assessing the reasonable expectations of the data subjects as at the time
that the information requested was collated by the MPS, there would have
been no expectation that it would be made publicly available outside of
criminal proceedings. In addition, it should be noted that the
investigation did not result in criminal or misconduct proceedings. Those
subject to this investigation are therefore innocent of any wrongdoing and
should be protected from any inference of such. In view of the fact that
release of the requested report would likely result in publicity and
repetition of the allegations about the conduct of the data subjects, it
is unlikely that release would be fair given that the data subjects were
not found guilty of any offence. I have found this to be a particularly
persuasive argument given that the investigation was concluded over 20
years ago.

On balance, having considered release of the requested personal data under
the Act, I have found that the case for release has not been met. Whilst
there is clearly a public interest in transparency as the conduct of
public officials has been investigated, this does not outweigh the case
for withholding the detail of this investigation when the expectations
regarding disclosure, the outcome and the time that has elapsed since the
investigation's conclusion are taken into account.

Over and above the requirement to assess fairness under the Act, I have
also examined the legal rights set out by the DPA in relation to the
processing of sensitive personal data. The vast majority of personal data
contained within the requested report is the sensitive personal data of
former Commander Adams and other persons subject to this investigation in
that it relates to the alleged commission of offences by the data subjects
(Section 2{g} of the DPA). Within the context of a disclosure under the
Act, the Information Commissioner (the Freedom of Information Act and Data
Protection Act ombudsman) considers that either Condition 1 (explicit
consent) or Condition 5 (information already made public by the
individual) must be present for sensitive personal data to be released
(ICO Personal Data Guidance - Version 4). In view of the fact that no
explicit consent is present to release this information and any publicity
received has not been as a result of the active participation of the data
subjects, the MPS cannot release the requested sensitive personal data
without breaching the rights of the data subjects under the DPA.

This exemption is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is
claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is
accordingly no requirement to consider the public interest test as is set
out by the Act or demonstrate what harm would result from disclosure.
Section 30(1)(a)(i) - Investigations and Proceedings conducted by Public
Authorities: Qualified Exemptions/Class Based
Under Section 30(1)(a) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold
information if it has, at any time, been held by the authority for the
purposes of any investigation with a view to it being ascertained whether
a person should be charged with an offence.

I have claimed this exemption in that the requested information was held
as a part of an investigation, the aim of which was to identify whether a
person should be charged with an offence.

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

Please find the public interest considerations that I have identified and
evaluated in relation to Section 30(1)(a)(i) of the Act.
 
Accountability
The information requested forms part of the investigation into allegations
of corruption against police officers and a number of third parties. When
an investigation is conducted by the police into the alleged conduct of
their own staff, there is a clear public interest in releasing the facts
established by the investigation. This is particularly the case given the
rank and position of former Commander Ray Adams. The release of this
information would accordingly reinforce the MPS commitment as an open and
transparent organisation and serve to maintain public confidence in the
Police Service.
Public Awareness/Debate
Operation Russell has been the subject of a number of media reports and
requests for information. The release of the requested report would place
the facts of this investigation into the public domain facilitating for an
informed and accurate public debate about the nature of the allegations
investigated by police and the extent of the police investigation.
Actions of Public Officials
To fulfill the role of a police officer, individuals who hold the office
of constable are granted extraordinary powers. When a request for
information is made that concerns the actions of police officers whilst in
office, there is a clear public interest in making appropriate information
available to the general public.
Public Confidence
The general public rightly expects the police to have carried out a full
inquiry into allegations of corruption against their own staff. To
maintain public confidence in the MPS, it is important that the MPS, where
possible, is open about its investigation and findings.
Public Interest Considerations Favouring Non-Disclosure
Police Investigations / Internal Investigations
The requested report forms part of a criminal investigation. The public
release of this report which is, in the main, comprised of information
provided by way of witness statements, would not be in keeping with the
terms of reference for this investigation or the restricted use of
information held in connection with criminal investigations. This is
particularly the case given that the requested information was obtained by
the MPS in 1987 when there was no Freedom of Information Act or equivalent
legislation. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the appropriate
authority to review information obtained by the police in connection with
a criminal investigation. It would therefore be inappropriate and unfair
for the detail of this investigation to be provided to the general public.
Flow of Information to the Service
The Police Service is reliant upon the provision of information from the
general public to effectively investigate whether a crime has taken place.
This exchange of information is made upon the basis that the information
received by the Police Service is confidential and restricted to a
policing purpose. The public release of information provided in confidence
by the general public could inhibit the ability of the Police Service to
obtain information in connection with future investigations, as those that
provide information in connection with a criminal investigation, may not
approve of its public release.    
Fair Treatment of Individuals
The MPS has a moral duty to treat members of the public fairly. In view of
the fact that the statements and supporting evidence were obtained and/or
recorded to further both criminal and misconduct investigations, there
would be no reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this
information publicly available. The release of this information would be
unfair to those concerned in this investigation and would be likely to
cause undue distress to these persons.
Evaluation
When a request for information is made, I must determine whether
exemptions should be claimed and in the case of exemptions that are
qualified, establish whether release is in the public interest. Having
considered your request, I have found that both Section 40 (personal
information) and Section 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by
public authorities) of the Act are applicable to the requested
information. I have chosen to claim Section 40 of the Act in that, having
examined the case for and against release of the requested
personal/sensitive personal data, I have found that release would be
unfair to those persons concerned in this investigation. I have found this
to be particularly the case given that no person was found to be guilty of
any offence.

Section 30 of the Act is a qualified exemption and can be claimed subject
to consideration of the public interest. Having chosen to claim this
exemption and identified the factors relevant to the public interest, I
have carefully examined the importance of holding the police to account
for their actions. I consider this to be of particular importance given
that the information requested relates to the conduct of police and in
part, focuses upon the alleged conduct of a former senior police officer.

In considering your request, I have also evaluated the harm that release
would be likely to cause. In doing so, I have carefully considered the
expectation upon which the requested information was obtained and recorded
and what would be expected in terms of its use. In doing so, I have
considered the reasonable expectations of those that provide information
to police and what they would reasonably expect the police to do with that
information. This is important as the Police Service is dependent upon the
continued co-operation of the public to prevent and detect crime. I have
also carefully considered the statutory role of the CPS in reviewing the
information obtained by police in connection with a criminal
investigation. I have attached particular weight to this as the CPS is the
appropriate authority to review the information requested on behalf of the
public.

In considering any request for information, the balance between all
opposing interests must be found. Whilst I acknowledge the case for
transparency when an investigation concerns the alleged conduct of police
officers and in particular, an officer of Commander rank, the case for
refusal is both clear and compelling. The requested report forms part of a
criminal investigation where its release to the general public would not
be in keeping with the terms of reference for this investigation or the
restricted use of information held in connection with criminal
proceedings. In addition, the CPS on behalf of the general public, is the
appropriate authority to review information obtained by the police in
connection with a criminal investigation. I also acknowledge, in reaching
a decision, that the MPS has already made the result of Operation Russell
available to the general public. In view of this, I believe that it would
be unfair for the detail of this investigation to be provided to the
general public. Having carefully considered your request, I have found
that release of the requested report is not in the public interest. I am
accordingly not required to disclose the requested information to you.

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

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 0207 161 6510 or at the address at the top of this email,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Damion Baird
LEGAL ANNEX
Section 1(1)(a) 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"

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 (2)(a)(b) & (3)(a)(i) of the Act provides:

"(1) Any information to which a request for information relates is exempt
information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the
data subject.
(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if -
(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.
(3) The first condition is -
(a)in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to
(d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act
1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public
otherwise than under this Act would contravene -
(i) any of the data protection principles,"

Section 30(1)(a)(i) of the Act provides:
"(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it
has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of -
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct
with a view to it being ascertained -
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence,"
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

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

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

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear 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 'Investigation Report'.

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

Yours faithfully,

Jon Tucker

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr  Tucker

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2013090001964

I write in connection with your request for a review of the original MPS
decision relating to 2013090000768 which was received by the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS) on 13/09/2013.  

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

FOIA TEAM
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

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

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

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please provide a response to my request of review.

Yours faithfully,

Jon Tucker

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Tucker,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2013090001964

Further to our letter of 20 September 2013, the MPS has unfortunately been
unable to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation
to:

* Original FOI case number 2013090000768

The MPS hope to complete your review no later than 6 November 2013. Should
there be any unforeseen delay, we will contact you and update you as soon
as possible.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

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 quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Ms S. Strong
FOIA Complaints 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 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

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Tucker

Freedom of Information request for review reference: 2013090001964

I write in connection with your correspondence dated 13th September 2013
requesting an internal review of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)
handling of your Freedom of information request, reference 2013090000768.
 

Original Request

A copy of the report of the 1987 investigation, codenamed Operation
Russell.

Request for Review

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service
(MPS)’s handling of my FOI request ‘Investigation Report’.

DECISION

The MPS has completed its review and has decided to uphold the original
decision to exempt the requested information by virtue of section
40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i) Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Personal
information and section 30(1)(a)(i) FoIA - Investigations and proceedings
conducted by public authorities.
 
Further reference to the FoIA can be found by way of this link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Reason for decision

As mentioned in the original response the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FoIA) provides a right of public access to information held by a public
authority. On receipt of a request for information a public authority
must, if permitted, confirm if it holds the 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 not suitable for release.
Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public
domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under
the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated
to any individual should a request be received.  Any information released
is also placed on the MPS FoIA Disclosure Log which can be found by way of
this link: http://www.met.police.uk/foi/disclosure/...

The review has considered your original request for information within the
provisions set out by the FoIA and has decided to uphold the original
decision to fully exempt the requested information by virtue of section
40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i) relating to personal information and section
30(1)(a)(i) relating to investigations and proceedings conducted by public
authorities. The review found the original response to be robust in this
case and will not therefore re-iterate the reasons already provided to
you, but hope to explain why in this case the MPS has engaged these
exemptions.

Personal Information

The review takes note of your comment ‘I am writing to request an internal
review of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)’s handling of my FOI request…’
In this respect the review has returned to your original request for
information which seeks ‘A copy of the report of the 1987 investigation,
codenamed Operation Russell.’ The review takes note of the comment in the
original MPS response which states ‘I can confirm that I have located the
Operation Russell investigating officer’s final report.’

Information Tribunal EA/2010/0089 points out ‘the question of whether the
exemption in section 40(2) of FoIA is engaged is a question of Law based
upon the analysis of the facts.  This is not a case where the Commissioner
was required to exercise his discretion’ Personal data is defined in
section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998 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. The Tribunal
appeal can be found by of this link:
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB...

The review takes note of the original notice which states ‘I have claimed
this exemption in that the information requested constitutes the personal
and sensitive personal data of former Commander Ray Adams and other
persons concerned in this investigation where release would be in breach
of the rights provided to them by the DPA.’ On this basis the review is
therefore satisfied that the information being requested constitutes
someone’s personal data as it has a real and direct relationship to a
living person.  In addition the person’s involved in this investigation
would be the focus of the information being requested and is
‘biographical’ in a significant sense as it affects their personal privacy
of being identified in a specific investigation either as a witness or
otherwise.  

In addition, the review takes note of the following statement in the
initial MPS response ‘It is a matter of public record that former
Commander Ray Adams and a number of other persons (including a number of
police officers) were investigated in relation to allegations of
corruption in 1987…’ Section 2 Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998 defines
‘sensitive personal data’ as personal data consisting of information as to
(g) the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence. The review
is therefore satisfied that the information being requested is the
sensitive personal data of those individuals subject to the investigation
which ran under the name of Operation Russell.  

In Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Decision Notice FS50419834
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...
the ICO summarised ‘The DPA also provides additional safeguards for
sensitive personal data which is defined in section 2 of the Act…’  In
this notice the ICO considered whether a disclosure of sensitive personal
data otherwise than under the FoIA would be fair for the purposes of the
first principle of the DPA.  The first principle 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 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.’ Further reference can be found by
way of this link http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998...

In FS50419834 in deciding whether the disclosure of the requested
information would be fair the Commissioner took into account the following
factors:

·        Whether disclosure would cause any unnecessary or unjustified
damage or distress to the individual concerned

·        The individual’s reasonable expectations of what would happen to
their information and

·        Whether the legitimate interests of the public are sufficient to
justify any negative impact to the rights and freedoms of the data
subject.

In this case the review has also considered the same factors and takes
note of the balanced arguments put forward in the original MPS response.
In addition the review is aware that it is essential that a public
authority balances the rights and freedoms with legitimate interests. In
this respect the review takes note of ICO guidance on requests for
personal data about employees, which can be found by way of this link:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/...
This guidance states ‘the interest in disclosure must be a public
interest, not the private interest of the individual requestor. The
requestor’s interests are only relevant in so far as they reflect a wider
public interest.’   The ICO further advises ‘under DPA the exercise of
balancing the rights and freedoms of the employees against the legitimate
interest in disclosure is different to the public interest test that is
required for the qualified exemptions listed in section 2(3) FOIA. In the
public interest test, there is an assumption in favour of disclosure
because the public authority must disclose information unless the public
interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in
disclosure. In the case of section 40(2) the interaction with the DPA
means the assumption is reversed; a justification is needed for
disclosure.’

The review further takes note of the initial response which states ‘…it
should be noted that the investigation did not result in criminal or
misconduct proceedings. Those subject to this investigation are therefore
innocent of any wrongdoing and should be protected from any inference of
such. In view of the fact that release of the requested report would
likely result in publicity and repetition of the allegations about the
conduct of the data subjects, it is unlikely that release would be fair
given that the data subjects were not found guilty of any offence.’

The review is therefore satisfied that all issues have been considered and
disclosure of the report of the 1987 investigation, Operation Russell
would not be fair in this case.

Investigations

The ICO has published guidance on the exemption for criminal
investigations and proceedings, which can be found by way of this link:
http://www.ico.org.uk/upload/documents/l...

This guidance states ‘section 30 creates an exemption for information:

·        Which is or has been held for the purposes of a criminal
investigation;

·        Which is or has been held for criminal proceedings conducted by a
public authority; or,

·        Which was obtained or recorded for various investigative
functions and relates to the obtaining of information from confidential
sources.’

In this case section 30(1)(a)(i) has been engaged where the information in
question must relate to an investigation which the public authority has a
duty to investigate with a view to it being ascertained whether a person
should be charged with an offence.  Where this exemption is engaged, the
public interest must favour the maintenance of the exemption over
disclosure of the information.  Where the public interest favours
disclosure, the information in question should be disclosed despite the
exemption being engaged. As a class based exemption, this means it is not
necessary to identify some harm that may occur as a result of disclosure
in order to engage the exemption, however the ICO reminds public
authorities ‘although you do not have to identify some prejudice in order
to engage the exemption, it will be an important factor when applying the
pubic interest test.’

The review takes note of the public interest considerations in favour of
disclosure in the initial MPS response, namely ‘the information requested
forms part of the investigation into allegations of corruption against
police officers and a number of third parties. When an investigation is
conducted by the police into the alleged conduct of their own staff, there
is a clear public interest in releasing the facts established by the
investigation. This is particularly the case given the rank and position
of former Commander Ray Adams. The release of this information would
accordingly reinforce the MPS commitment as an open and transparent
organisation and serve to maintain public confidence in the police
service.’  However this must be balanced against the considerations
favouring non-disclosure, namely ‘the police service is reliant upon the
provision of information from the general public to effectively
investigate whether a crime has taken place.  This exchange of information
is made upon the basis that the information received by the police service
is confidential and restricted to a policing purpose. The public release
of information provided in confidence by the general public could inhibit
the ability of the police service to obtain information in connection with
future investigations ’.

In the First-Tier Tribunal Information Rights EA/2011/0057
 http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB...
the tribunal refers to previous cases and states ‘The general public
interest by section 30(1) exemption is the effective investigation and
prosecution of crime, which itself requires in particular (a) the
protection of witnesses and informers to ensure that people are not
deterred from making statements or reports by the fear that they may be
publicised, (b) the maintenance of the independence of the judicial and
prosecution processes and (c) the preservation of the criminal court as
the sole forum for determining guilt. In assessing where the public
interest balance lies in a section 30(1) case relevant matters are
therefore likely to include (a) the stage a particular investigation or
prosecution has reached (b) whether and to what extent the information is
already in the public domain (c) the significance or sensitivity of the
information requested and (d) whether there is any evidence that an
investigation or prosecution has not been carried out properly which may
be disclosed by the information…’

The review has regard for the ICO’s guidance in regards to the public
interest considerations namely ‘there is a general recognition that it is
in the public interest to safeguard the investigatory process. The right
of access should not undermine the investigation and prosecution of
criminal matters nor dissuade individuals from coming forward to report
wrongdoing.’

After weighing up the competing interests the review has determined that
the disclosure of the report of the 1987 investigation, Operation Russell
would not be in the public interest.  The review considers that the
benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not
outweigh disclosing the information.

Conclusion

The review is satisfied that the considerations have been identified in
the original MPS response and further expanded upon in this review. I hope
the explanation provided clarifies why on this occasion the MPS maintains
its stance to engage section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i) FoIA - personal
information and section 30(1)(a)(i) FoIA - investigations and proceedings
conducted by public authorities.
 
This decision is based on the circumstances of this particular case, with
regard to the nature of the information requested and with appropriate
consideration given to the public interest test.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
FoIA Quality and Assurance Advisor

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Ciaran Goggins (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Tucker, a redacted copy is available online. Peter Jukes added it to his hagiography of The Met and my site has a further analysis you may find useful.