Dear Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014040002543
I write in connection with your request for information  which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/04/2014.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

* "It has been widely reported in the national press that Police
Constable James Patrick has been notified, by letter, that he now
faces further disciplinary proceedings relating to his
appearance/contribution to two BBC Programmes, The One Show and
another. My request is this Which officer(s) were the author(s) of
this letter? Who made the decision to instigate further disciplinary
proceedings for Gross Misconduct? Please supply me with a suitably
redacted copy of the letter addressed to Constable Patrick referred to
above."

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference
to a third party.  In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to
achieve this deadline.  If this is likely you will be informed and
given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Yours sincerely

S Bhaskaran
Customer Services Administration Team
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014040002543

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/04/2014.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

It has been widely reported in the national press that Police Constable
James Patrick has been notified, by letter, that he now faces further
disciplinary proceedings relating to his appearance/contribution to two
BBC Programmes, The One Show and another.

My request is this

Which officer(s) were the author(s) of this letter?
Who made the decision to instigate further disciplinary proceedings for
Gross Misconduct?

Please supply me with a suitably redacted copy of the letter addressed to
Constable Patrick referred to above..
EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at The Directorate of Professional Standards and the Directorate of Media
and Communications.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located records relevant to your request.

DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I
am not required by statute to release the information requested. This
letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

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

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

Section 40(2) of the Act provides:

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

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

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

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

S16 of the Act - Duty to assist an applicant

To assist you further I have provided a link below to the MPS Media Policy
which is available on line.

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/polici...

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

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Yours sincerely

Margaret Bunker
Information Manager
In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Mr Wright

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014060000513

I write in connection with your request for a review of the original MPS
decision relating to 2014040002543 which was received by the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS) on 05/06/2014.  

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

David Edwards
Public Access Office
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Mr. Wright

Freedom of Information Review reference: 2014060000513

I write in connection with your correspondence dated 5th June 2014
concerning the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) handling of your Freedom
of information request, reference 2014040002543.  

Original Request

It has been widely reported in the national press that Police Constable
James Patrick has been notified, by letter, that he now faces further
disciplinary proceedings relating to his appearance/contribution to two
BBC Programmes, The One Show and another.

My request is this

Which officer(s) were the author(s) of this letter?
Who made the decision to instigate further disciplinary proceedings for
Gross Misconduct?

Please supply me with a suitably redacted copy of the letter addressed to
Constable Patrick referred to above.

Request for Review

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service
(MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'Notification of Further Discipline -
PC Patrick'.

The only Personal Data that I can think of that may be contained within a
letter or policy document is someone's name.

Since 2003 the Metropolitan Police Service has had a policy in place
requiring that officers display their first name and surname on their
uniforms or name badge (except for specific circumstances) thus making
their names readily available to the general public.

With this in mind I would ask you to Review your response to this request.

DECISION

The MPS has completed its review and has decided to uphold the original
decision to fully exempt information by virtue of section 40(2)(a)(b)and
(3)(a)(i) - Personal Information, Freedom of Information act 2000 (FoIA).

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

Reason for decision

Section 40(2)(3) FoIA - Personal Information

The review can advise that the Freedom of Information Act 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/...

In this case the review has returned to your original request which seeks
information in the form of ‘Which officer(s) were the author(s) of this
letter? Who made the decision to instigate further disciplinary
proceedings for Gross Misconduct? Please supply me with a suitably
redacted copy of the letter addressed to Constable Patrick referred to
above.’ 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 involved would be
the focus of the information being requested and is ‘biographical’ in a
significant sense as it affects their personal privacy. Further reference
to personal data can be found by way of this link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998....

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...

In FS50419834
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...
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.

The review has regard for your comment ‘Since 2003 the Metropolitan Police
Service has had a policy in place requiring that officers display their
first name and surname on their uniforms or name badge (except for
specific circumstances) thus making their names readily available to the
general public.’ And refers to Decision Notice FS50419834 in which the ICO
clarifies ’…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.’ In this case the review has also
considered these same factors and after weighing up the competing
interests the review has determined that the disclosure of the requested
information for a named individual would not be in the public interest.

Finally, the review has regard for Information Tribunal [EA/2007/0060]
which states “... the application of Paragraph 6 of the DPA involves a
balance between competing interests broadly comparable, but not identical,
to the balance that applies under the public interest test for qualified
exemptions under FOIA. Paragraph 6 requires a consideration of the balance
between: (i) the legitimate interests of those to whom the data would be
disclosed which in this context are members of the public (section
40(3)(a)); and (ii) prejudice to the rights, freedoms and legitimate
interests of data subjects…However because the processing must be
‘necessary’ for the legitimate interests of members of the public to apply
we find that only where (i) outweighs or is greater than (ii) should the
personal data be disclosed.”  The review considers that the benefit that
would result from the personal details as would be contained within the
information being requested does not outweigh disclosing this information.
The Tribunal appeal can be found by way of this link:
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB...

Conclusion

The ICO advises ‘the interest in disclosure must be a public interest, not
the private interest of the individual requester. The requester’s
interests are only relevant in so far as they reflect a wider public
interest. This is because, when information is disclosed under FOIA, it is
effectively disclosed to the world at large, not only to the requester.’
 The review is therefore satisfied that any disclosure of personal data,
as would be contained within the specific details you have requested for a
named individual, by way of a FoIA disclosure to the World, would not be
fair and therefore finds that section 40(2) and (3) FoIA is appropriately
engaged in this case.

If you are dissatisfied with this FoIA internal review, you have the right
to appeal the decision by contacting the Information Commissioner for a
decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the FoIA.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
FoIA Quality and Assurance Advisor

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