Misuse of force in Haringey and Hackney

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

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers serving in the London Borough of Haringey have been reported or investigated for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2014. I would like to request, in a separate list, this same document pertaining to the London Borough of Hackney.

For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault' 'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.

I would like this list:

(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)

Yours faithfully,

Patrick Kenner

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Kenner

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015120000327

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 04/12/2015.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"I would like to request a list of the instances in which police
officers serving in the London Borough of Haringey have been reported or
investigated for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31
December 2014. I would like to request, in a separate list, this same
document pertaining to the London Borough of Hackney.
   
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault'
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
   
I would like this list:
   
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff
&c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g.
which branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)"

Your request will now be allocated to the relevant unit within the MPS and
will be processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).  

You will receive your response directly from the relevant unit within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  

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.

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above.  Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

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

Complaint

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

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

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

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

The Information Commissioner

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

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

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 745

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 Kenner
 
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015120000327
 
I write in connection with your request for information relating to
“Misuse of force”.
 
Your request forms part of a pattern of FOI requests that the MPS have
received that not only focus on the same topic, but are near identical. 
The requests the MPS are currently dealing with include the following:
 
Requests received in December 2015:
 
 
Request 2015120000327
 
I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers
serving in the London Borough of Haringey have been reported or
investigated for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31
December 2014. I would like to request, in a separate list, this same
document pertaining to the London Borough of Hackney.
 
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault'
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
 
I would like this list:
 
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)
 
 
REQUEST 2015120000328
 
I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers
serving in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets have been reported or
investigated for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31
December 2014.
 
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault'
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
 
I would like this list:
 
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)
 
 
REQUEST 2015120000354
 
I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers
serving in the London Borough of Camden have been reported or investigated
for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2014. I
would also like to request the same information, in a separate
spreadsheet, for the London Borough of Westminster.
 
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault'
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
 
I would like this list:
 
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)
 
 
REQUEST 2015120000366
 
I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers
serving in the London Borough of Croydon have been reported or
investigated for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31
December 2014.
 
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault'
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
 
I would like this list:
 
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)
 
 
I would also like to request a list of the instances in which police
officers serving in the London Borough of Wandsworth have been reported or
investigated for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31
December 2014.
 
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault'
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
 
I would like this list:
 
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)
 
 
REQUEST 2015120000448
 
I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers
serving in the London Borough of Hounslow have been reported or
investigated for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31
December 2014.
 
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault'
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
 
I would like this list:
 
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)
 
 
REQUEST 2015120000468
 
I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers
serving in the London Borough of Enfield have been reported or
investigated for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31
December 2014.
 
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault',
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
 
I would like this list:
 
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)
 
 
REQUEST 2015120000473
 
I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers
serving in the London Borough of Ealing have been reported or investigated
for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2014.
 
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault',
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
 
I would like this list:
 
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)
 
 
REQUEST 2015120000476
 
I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers
serving in the London Borough of Barnet have been reported or investigated
for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2014.
 
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault',
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
 
I would like this list:
 
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)
 
These requests followed another two very similar requests that were
received in October 2015 and were as follows:
 
 
REQUEST 2015100000176
 
I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers
serving in the London Borough of Lambeth have been reported or
investigated for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31
December 2014.
 
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault'
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
 
I would like this list:
 
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the City of London Police, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)
 
 
REQUEST 2015100000932
 
I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers
serving in the London Borough of Southwark have been reported or
investigated for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31
December 2014.
 
For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault'
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
 
I would like this list:
 
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)
 
DECISION
 
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (the Act) I have decided to refuse your request as it has been deemed
a “Vexatious Request”.
 
REASONS FOR DECISION
 
Section 14(1) of the Act provides:
 
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request
for information if the request is vexatious.
 
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) provides guidance for dealing
with vexatious requests and paragraphs 91-97 of this guidance relate to
“campaigns”.
 
For ease of reference the guidance can be found at the following link:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
 
The ICO provides some examples for the types of evidence that supports the
identification of a campaign and included in this are the following points
that are relevant in this instance:
 

* The requests are identical or similar

 

* There is an unusual pattern of request, for example a large number
have been submitted within a relatively short space of time.

 
The guidance goes on to state that authorities should distinguish between
cases where the requesters are abusing their information rights to engage
in a campaign of disruption and requests that are genuinely directed at
gathering information.
 
Having considered this I believe that the above requests are genuinely
seeking information and therefore I will now go on to consider the impact
these requests have on the MPS and weigh this against the purpose and
value of the requests.
 
Considering whether the purpose and value justifies the impact on the MPS
 
The requests in consideration here relate to misuse of force and as such
there is a serious purpose in obtaining this information and putting it in
the public domain.  It’s also clear that there is a strong public interest
in publishing matters relating to officer’s conduct and subsequent
complaints.  Such disclosures help to show the MPS to be an open and
transparent organisation that is prepared to be held publically
accountable for the actions of its employees.
 
The above is to be balanced against the detrimental impact on the MPS and
any evidence that the requestor is abusing the right of access.  In
relation to the latter, I am aware that a previous request for exactly the
same information across the MPS as a whole was cost refused. 
Following that, requests for single or two boroughs at a time began to be
received by the MPS.  This would indicate that these requests are a
deliberate attempt to obtain information in a piecemeal fashion which when
requested in its entirely attracted the cost exemption due to the
significant work incurred in responding to the request.
 
The work that is involved in responding to a request for data relating to
the whole of the MPS is not reduced by splitting that request up into
smaller chunks.  In fact the reverse is true as multiple cases need to be
logged on our case management system and multiple responses have to be
prepared and approved before they are issued. 
 
The above provides evidence of abuse of the right of access.  I will now
consider the detrimental impact on the public authority.  In order to
fully consider this I am taking into account the Information
Commissioner’s guidance on requests that impose a significant burden
(paragraphs 64-74 of the linked guidance).
 
The guidance states that the public authority will most likely have a
viable case for claiming that a request imposes a grossly oppressive
burden where:
 

* The requester has asked for a substantial volume of information AND

 

* The authority has real concerns about potentially exempt information,
which it will be able to substantiate if asked to do so by the ICO AND

 

* Any potentially exempt information cannot easily be isolated because
it is scattered throughout the requested material.

 
I can confirm that I have viewed the information already prepared in
respect of these misuse of force requests and I have discussed this matter
with the individuals involved in collating this data. 
 
Enquiries show that a typical borough would have approximately 300 records
considered “misuse of force”.  While in isolation this would be time
consuming, but not a “grossly oppressive burden” the fact that we are
working, or have worked, on this for 14 boroughs means that this is a
substantial volume of information.  Furthermore, the 14 boroughs represent
less than half of the area covered by the Metropolitan Police Service area
and given the pattern of requests already received it is likely that
information on the remaining boroughs would also be sought.
 
In order to ensure that the information disclosed is appropriate
substantial work is required to manually read through and redact exempt
information from these records.  To clarify a single record does not
relate to a single line of text, summaries of the incident will be much
larger than this.  Furthermore, while the exempt data is predominantly
personal data (such as names, addresses and other identifiers) there can
be occasions where other exemptions may apply and all possible exemptions
must be considered before any disclosure can be made.   I can confirm that
the information viewed includes a significant amount of exempt information
and therefore our “real concerns” can be easily substantiated if required
(by the ICO).
 
Finally I can confirm that the information exists “scattered” throughout
the summary fields in the data.  It cannot be easily isolated other than
with the entire removal of the summary data, which would mean your
requests were not answered in full.
 
I am content that the requests meet the threshold set out by the
Information Commissioner’s Office and as such I consider that the requests
constitute a grossly oppressive burden on the MPS.
 
Balance test
 
In the text immediately above I considered the detrimental impact these
requests would have on the MPS.  This detrimental impact is considered
alongside the evidence of abuse to the right of access mentioned earlier
and is weighted against the serious purpose of the requests and the wider
public interest that would be served in disclosure.
 
Having considered all the relevant factors I have decided that section
14(1) should be applied to these requests.  In particular I note that
while there is a strong public interest consideration in respect of
complaints against the police the MPS publish a significant amount of
information which assists in meeting this public interest. 
 
I would like to elaborate further by explaining that the MPS publish a
wide array of data on this matter both in response to FOI requests and on
a proactive basis.  For example the following link provides data relating
to public complaints broken down by borough and complaint type as well as
other types of related data. 
 
[2]http://www.met.police.uk/foi/units/direc...
 
In addition, and as referred to above, the information that requires
redaction - and therefore makes these requests burdensome - is contained
within the summary field.  The MPS would be able to disclose the remaining
information should you chose to omit that field.  This would provide you
with details of number of misuse of force complaints broken down by year,
borough, outcome and IPCC referral.
 
If you are interested in submitting a narrowed request for the information
mentioned above please let me know and I will arrange for this to be
logged and processed accordingly.
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
 
Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.
 
Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact David Edwards on telephone number 0207 161 3583 quoting the
reference number above.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
 
 
David Edwards
Information Rights Unit
 
 
LEGAL ANNEX
 
Section 17(5) of the Act provides:
 
(5)     A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must,
within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a
notice stating that fact.
 
Section 14(1) of the Act provides:
 
(1)     Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious.
 
Link to the Freedom of Information Act:
 
[3]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...
 
Link to the Information Commissioner’s Guidance on dealing with vexatious
requests:
 
[4]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
 
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
 
Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?
 
You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.
 
Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request. 
 
Complaint
 
If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.
 
Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:
 
FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]
 
In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
 
The Information Commissioner
 
After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.
 
For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at [5]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

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
2. http://www.met.police.uk/foi/units/direc...
3. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...
4. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
5. file:///tmp/www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I would like to appeal this decision on the following grounds:

1. This request does not represent a campaign to disrupt the organisation by virtue of the sheer volume of information being asked. Even though I don't deny I am working in concert, that in itself isn't grounds to deny the information. I want the information for its own value and importance, not because I want the authority to be disrupted. I have nowhere stated a desire to disrupt the authority, nor can it be reasonably inferred from my request.
2. Following on from this, I believe that the information each of us has asked for is important, and desire it because it is vital for the public to be able to properly hold the MPS to account, and understand more adequately the internal disciplinary procedures of the MPS, and their outcomes.
3. Information being requested is not a duplication or repetition, but is distinct and separate - what is being requested is separate information for each borough, therefore the information provided in one request is in no way identical or overlapping with the information asked for in another request. The requests in themselves cannot therefore be vexatious. Furthermore, the requests are being made from separate individuals (even if they may or may not be working in concert), and therefore they cannot be reasonably bundled together into a single request, as the MPS is trying to do here.
4. Therefore to justify refusing these requests, you would have to prove that this would cause a disproportionate and unjustified level of 'disruption, irrituation, or distress', something that you have failed to do. The requests have an incredibly serious purpose in developing the culture of public transparency and accountability with regards to the MPS and its use of violence against members of the public, and therefore it seems highly improbable that the level of annoyance caused by these requests could outweigh their value and purpose for furthering these stated aims.
5. The MPS has previously shown itself willing and able to fulfill similar requests on an individual basis, many of which also involve redaction of the 'summary field', without any issue regarding excessive work or disruption, therefore they should continue to act in good faith and fulfill these requests.

Yours faithfully,

Patrick Kenner

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Kenner

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2016030001399

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to  2015120000327 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on  29/03/2016.  

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

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

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

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

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

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Kenner

Freedom of Information Review reference: 2016030001399

In connection with your correspondence dated 29th March 2016 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response to your
request for information (ref: 2015120000327).

Please note your request for review is outside the 40 working days, as
explained in the MPS response sent to you on the 23rd December 2015
‘Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice’. However in this case the MPS has agreed
to review the response provided to you.

Request  
I would like to request a list of the instances in which police officers
serving in the London Borough of Haringey have been reported or
investigated for the misuse of force between 1 January 2012 and 31
December 2014. I would like to request, in a separate list, this same
document pertaining to the London Borough of Hackney.

For the purposes of this request, 'misuse of force' is intended to include
complaints under the allegation categories: 'serious non-sexual assault'
'sexual assault', 'other assault' and 'oppressive conduct or harassment'.
I would like this list:
(a) to be ordered according to date of report
(b) to include a brief summary of the reported incident
(c) to include a Type Description of the report
(d) to include the geographical location of the incident
(e) to include the staff type (e.g. PO, SC, or other police staff &c.)
(f) to include the staff location at the date of the incident (e.g. which
branch of the MPS, or station)
(g) to include the result of the complaint (e.g. No Case to Answer, Local
Resolution, Disapplication &c.)
(h) to include the action taken (if any)
(i) to include the sanction enforced (if any)
(j) to indicate whether the complaint was referred to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)

Review
1. This request does not represent a campaign to disrupt the organisation
by virtue of the sheer volume of information being asked. Even though I
don't deny I am working in concert, that in itself isn't grounds to deny
the information. I want the information for its own value and importance,
not because I want the authority to be disrupted. I have nowhere stated a
desire to disrupt the authority, nor can it be reasonably inferred from my
request.

2. Following on from this, I believe that the information each of us has
asked for is important, and desire it because it is vital for the public
to be able to properly hold the MPS to account, and understand more
adequately the internal disciplinary procedures of the MPS, and their
outcomes.

3. Information being requested is not a duplication or repetition, but is
distinct and separate - what is being requested is separate information
for each borough, therefore the information provided in one request is in
no way identical or overlapping with the information asked for in another
request. The requests in themselves cannot therefore be vexatious.
Furthermore, the requests are being made from separate individuals (even
if they may or may not be working in concert), and therefore they cannot
be reasonably bundled together into a single request, as the MPS is trying
to do here.

4. Therefore to justify refusing these requests, you would have to prove
that this would cause a disproportionate and unjustified level of
'disruption, irrituation, or distress', something that you have failed to
do. The requests have an incredibly serious purpose in developing the
culture of public transparency and accountability with regards to the MPS
and its use of violence against members of the public, and therefore it
seems highly improbable that the level of annoyance caused by these
requests could outweigh their value and purpose for furthering these
stated aims.

5. The MPS has previously shown itself willing and able to fulfill similar
requests on an individual basis, many of which also involve redaction of
the 'summary field', without any issue regarding excessive work or
disruption, therefore they should continue to act in good faith and
fulfill these requests.

REVIEW DECISION

The review has decided to uphold the original MPS decision to deem the
request a Vexatious Request by virtue of section 14(1) Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FoIA).

Please note it is the request that is deemed vexatious and not the
individual who submitted it.

Reason for decision

The review takes note of your comments 1 and 2, namely ‘This request does
not represent a campaign to disrupt the organisation by virtue of the
sheer volume of information being asked. Even though I don't deny I am
working in concert, that in itself isn't grounds to deny the information.
I want the information for its own value and importance, not because I
want the authority to be disrupted. I have nowhere stated a desire to
disrupt the authority, nor can it be reasonably inferred from my request ;
Following on from this, I believe that the information each of us has
asked for is important, and desire it because it is vital for the public
to be able to properly hold the MPS to account, and understand more
adequately the internal disciplinary procedures of the MPS, and their
outcomes..’ And in this regard can advise that the Freedom of Information
Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public
authorities. Section 1(1) of the FoIA provides that 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.

This right of access to information is not without exception and is
subject to a number of exemptions and other provisions under the Act,
including section 14(1) which provides: Section 1(1) does not oblige a
public authority to comply with a request for information if the request
is vexatious.

The review also takes note of your comments 3 and 4 ‘Information being
requested is not a duplication or repetition, but is distinct and separate
- what is being requested is separate information for each borough,
therefore the information provided in one request is in no way identical
or overlapping with the information asked for in another request. The
requests in themselves cannot therefore be vexatious. Furthermore, the
requests are being made from separate individuals (even if they may or may
not be working in concert), and therefore they cannot be reasonably
bundled together into a single request, as the MPS is trying to do here;
Therefore to justify refusing these requests, you would have to prove that
this would cause a disproportionate and unjustified level of 'disruption,
irrituation, or distress', something that you have failed to do. The
requests have an incredibly serious purpose in developing the culture of
public transparency and accountability with regards to the MPS and its use
of violence against members of the public, and therefore it seems highly
improbable that the level of annoyance caused by these requests could
outweigh their value and purpose for furthering these stated aims.’ And
has examined the initial handling of this case and also considered in
detail the comprehensive response sent to you and upholds the original
decision in this case to apply section 14(1).

The review has considered the detailed response sent in this case, which
fully explains the rationale behind the application of the exemption. For
this reason the review therefore considers there would be no benefit in
reiterating these same points again in this review decision.

The review would however, like to remind you, as mentioned above, that
section 14(1) only ever relates to a request and not an individual
applicant.  Therefore, in response to your comment at 5, namely ‘The MPS
has previously shown itself willing and able to fulfill similar requests
on an individual basis, many of which also involve redaction of the
'summary field', without any issue regarding excessive work or disruption,
therefore they should continue to act in good faith and fulfill these
requests.’ has no bearing on the application of section 14(1) in this
specific case.  This is because, as explained in the original decision,
the justification for the use of the exemption is based on the overall
burden that requests such as these places on the authority.

Conclusion

The review therefore supports the original decision to deem the request as
vexatious which constitute a grossly oppressive burden on the MPS for the
reasons already clearly explained in the initial refusal notice. If you
remain dissatisfied with the MPS decision you may make application to the
Information Commissioner (ico.org.uk) 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 an application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively,
write to or phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

Yours sincerely

M Lyng
Information Rights Unit.

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(5)&(6) FoIA provides:

(5)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must,
within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a
notice stating that fact.

(6)        Subsection (5) does not apply where—

(a) the public authority is relying on a claim that section 14 applies,

(b) the authority has given the applicant a notice, in relation to a
previous request for information, stating that it is relying on such a
claim, and

(c) it would in all the circumstances be unreasonable to expect the
authority to serve a further notice under subsection (5) in relation to
the current request.

Section 14(1) FoIA provides:

(1)        Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with
a request for information if the request is vexatious.

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