River House 2012-10-01 critical incident

The request was partially successful.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

On the night of 2012-10-01, a disturbance occurred at the River House facility operated by the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. The MPS treated this disturbance 'as a critical incident'.

From a previous request on this topic I understand that 'there is no information held in regards to the final report.'

Can you please send me information held by the MPS describing this critical incident, whether this is in the form of a (non-final) report and/or 'incident / decision logs' or other form that is retrievable within the acceptable time/cost limit.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014010001589
I write in connection with your request for information  which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 15/01/2014.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

* "On the night of 2012-10-01, a disturbance occurred at the River House
facility operated by the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation
Trust. The MPS treated this disturbance 'as a critical incident'. From
a previous request on this topic I understand that 'there is no
information held in regards to the final report.' Can you please send
me information held by the MPS describing this critical incident,
whether this is in the form of a (non-final) report and/or 'incident /
decision logs' or other form that is retrievable within the acceptable
time/cost limit. "

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 Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

You are in breach of the FoIA as your response is overdue.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014010001589

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 15/01/2014.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* On the night of 2012-10-01, a disturbance occurred at the River House
facility operated by the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation
Trust. The MPS treated this disturbance 'as a critical incident'.  
From a previous request on this topic I understand that 'there is no
information held in regards to the final report.  ' Can you please
send me information held by the MPS describing this critical incident,
whether this is in the form of a (non-final) report and/or 'incident /
decision logs' or other form that is retrievable within the acceptable
time/cost limit.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
on MPS systems and with Bromley Borough.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located records relevant to your request.

The records held include ten CAD reports and one CRIMINT report.  The CADs
relate to the 999 call and subsequent dispatch of officers, the CRIMINT is
an intelligence report.

I have been informed that on Incident Management Log was created however
despite searches on borough and with the senior investigating officer I
have not been able to locate this document.

Furthermore one document refers to a meeting in which this matter was to
be discussed, again no further information could be found in respect of
this meeting which may or may not have occurred.

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).   Please see the legal annex for sections
of the act referred to in this response.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The MPS rarely disclose CAD records other than to the person who made the
999 call.  This is because the report is considered the personal data of
the caller and the dispatch of officers often reveals our response and
this constitutes operational or tactical information.  In this instance
the reports also contain health related data which is sensitive personal
data as defined by the Data Protection Act, Section 2(e).  Similarly
CRIMINT reports contain intelligence and will also, in most cases, contain
personal data.

Due to the reasons outlined above I have decided to refuse access to the
held information.  I have applied the exemptions provided under Section 31
and Section 40 of the Act.  These refer to Law Enforcement and Personal
Data respectively.

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 0207 161 3583 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

David Edwards
on behalf of Bromley Borough

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

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

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

Law Enforcement - Section 31(1)(a)&(b) of the Act provides:

(1)        Information which is not exempt information by virtue of
section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would,
or would be likely to, prejudice—

(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders

This exemption is prejudice based and qualified, therefore I am required
to explain the harm that would be likely to occur following disclosure and
also consider the balance of the public interest.

Prejudice Test

The information requested contains details of the police deployment to the
incident specified.  This contains both specific information relating to
the locations of officers and other public services within the grounds of
the hospital and more general information relating to the incident and our
response.  If this information was to be published via the Freedom of
Information Act it would be likely to cause prejudice to our ability to
successfully deal with similar incidents either at the same location or
elsewhere.

Public Interest Test

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

It is accepted that there will be a degree of public interest in the
matter described both in respect of the initial incident and in the police
response.  Disclosure of the requested information would show that the
police dealt with the matter in an effective and appropriate way.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

It would not be in the best interests of the public to provide any
information that would or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or
detection of crime or that apprehension or prosecution of offenders.  In
this instance the specific details of the police deployments and decisions
taken would be likely to have a detrimental impact on our ability to
enforce the law.  

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
 I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh the arguments favouring non-disclosure.

Personal Data - Section 40(2)&(3)(a)(i) of the Act provides:

(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

This exemption is class based and absolute therefore I am not required to
explain the harm that would be likely to occur, nor am I required to
consider the public interest.  However I will explain why this exemption
applies.

The information requested constitutes personal data of both the caller and
the alleged offender.  

Furthermore as this data relates to criminal investigations it is also
considered sensitive personal data contained as defined by Section 2(g) &
(h) of the Data Protection Act.  Sensitive personal data is afforded
further safeguards from disclosure.

In order for the exemption provided under Section 40(2) to be engaged
disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first or
second condition as defined by subsections 3 and 4.  

Having reviewed the requested data I have decided that disclosure of this
information would breach principle one of the Data Protection Act, fair
and lawful processing.  

I have applied the exemption provided under Section 40(2) of the Freedom
of Information Act to this information as the first condition, defined in
subsection 3(a)(i) of Section 40 has been satisfied.  

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 Edwards,

Thank you for your response.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

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 'River House 2012-10-01 critical incident'.

I understand the refusal notice and the detailed explanations provided by Mr Edwards. The reason I request this internal review is that it would appear that the MPS hold other information about this incident which has neither been released nor exempted.

In particular, the last blog post of Mental Health Cop before his blog and Twitter account were unfortunately suspended includes ‘the Metropolitan Police issued a release when contacted with respect to this incident in which it made categorically clear that armed officers were not directly involved in the resolution of it but were in the vicinity of the hospital as a contingency.’

Neither this 'release' nor the related information has been provided, and this release does not appear to be public (at least I was not able to find it).

I look forward for this internal review to finding information about this incident that is held and has not been exempted.

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

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014020001741

I write in connection with your request for a review of the original MPS
decision relating to 2014010001589 which was received by the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS) on 17/02/2014.  

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

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 Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Can you please ensure that your internal review also checks that searches were made for information held as to the Gold, Silver, Bronze command structure that was put in place for this incident. There must be information describing this structure and at least the rank and the unit for each of these commanders should be released (names of the commanders have been released in several other serious incidents so please consider releasing their names as well).

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

David Mery left an annotation ()

This request was mentioned in the article at http://gizmonaut.net/blog/uk/2014/03/SLa...

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Your internal review is overdue as it is now over the 'timescale of 20 working days' and I have received no further communication.

I'd also like to bring to your attention some further information which was missing from the response that has since come to light. In particular, in the letter from AC Mark Rowley to Baroness Jenny Jones dated 2014-03-05, it is revealed that TSG officers entered the ward and that four of them drew their Tasers. This information is obviously held by the MPS and should have been communicated in your response to my FoI request. The letter does not state how many TSG officers entered the ward, which is likely also information held.

Furthermore, the recently released 'Police use of taser statistics, England and Wales, 2012 to 2013' suggests that all Taser incidents are classified as drawn, aimed, arcing, red dot, drive stun, angled drive stun, or fired. So the MPS must hold the information as to how Tasers were used at this incident.

Also as MPS officers assisted the placement of three patients in supervised confinement (SC) on other wards, you may also hold information about the use of restraints which has not been communicated in the response.

I look forward to receiving promptly your internal review into the way my request my handled as well as any information held that should have been provided.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014020001741

Further to our letter of 18th February 2014   I have unfortunately been
unable to meet the response time provided to you in relation to your
original case 2014010001589.

The MPS aim to complete internal reviews within 20 working days or in
exceptional cases within 40 working days. This is based upon guidance
issued by the Information Commissioner in relation to reasonable
timescales for the internal review process.

All requests and internal reviews are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
The internal review is intended to provide a fair and thorough review of
handling issues and of decisions taken pursuant to the Act, including
decisions taken about where the public interest lies in respect of exempt
information. It should enable a fresh decision to be taken on a
reconsideration of all the factors relevant to the request. For this
reason, as far as is practicable, FoIA Internal Reviews within the MPS are
conducted by individuals that have had no connection to the initial
handling of a request to facilitate a fresh look at the circumstances of a
request.

In this instance it has not been possible to provide you with a response
to your complaint within our target timescale. The review is currently
ongoing and I hope to respond to you by the 15th April 2014. Should there
be any further delay, I will update you as soon as possible.

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

David Mery left an annotation ()

I linked to the internal review in http://gizmonaut.net/blog/uk/2014/03/mor...

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information request for review reference: 2014020001741

I write in connection with your correspondence dated 17th February 2014
requesting that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response
to your request for information under reference 2014010001589. Please find
below a response to your complaint.

Request

On the night of 2012-10-01, a disturbance occurred at the River House
facility operated by the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.
The MPS treated this disturbance 'as a critical incident'.   From a
previous request on this topic I understand that 'there is no information
held in regards to the final report.  ' Can you please send me information
held by the MPS describing this critical incident, whether this is in the
form of a (non-final) report and/or 'incident / decision logs' or other
form that is retrievable within the acceptable time/cost limit.

Request for Review

I understand the refusal notice and the detailed explanations provided by
Mr Edwards. The reason I request this internal review is that it would
appear that the MPS hold other information about this incident which has
neither been released nor exempted.

In particular, the last blog post of Mental Health Cop before his blog and
Twitter account were unfortunately suspended includes ‘the Metropolitan
Police issued a release when contacted with respect to this incident in
which it made categorically clear that armed officers were not directly
involved in the resolution of it but were in the vicinity of the hospital
as a contingency.’

Neither this 'release' nor the related information has been provided, and
this release does not appear to be public (at least I was not able to find
it).

I look forward for this internal review to finding information about this
incident that is held and has not been exempted.

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

Your further correspondence - 28/02/2014

Can you please ensure that your internal review also checks that searches
were made for information held as to the Gold, Silver, Bronze command
structure that was put in place for this incident. There must be
information describing this structure and at least the rank and the unit
for each of these commanders should be released (names of the commanders
have been released in several other serious incidents so please consider
releasing their names as well).

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to set aside the original decision and instead engage section
12(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA) - where costs exceed the
appropriate limit to determine whether it holds information of the
description specified to the request. This review decision therefore
serves as a refusal notice by virtue of section 17(5) FoIA.

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

Reason for decision

Information held by public authorities

I would like to provide you with some assistance on access to information
held by public authorities. Section 16 of the FoIA provides an obligation
for a public authority to provide advice and assistance to a person making
a request, so far as it would be reasonable to do so. I thought it might
be useful to you if I clarified that requests for information under the
Freedom of Information Act are for information held by a public authority
at the time a request is made.  

Section 8 of the FoIA sets out the criteria for a request to be valid
under the Act. The criteria are that the request must be made in writing,
be legible, contain the name and address of the applicant, and describes
the information requested.  In Section 84(c) of the FoIA, ‘information’ is
further defined as ‘information recorded in any form’.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published guidance on this
issue and states ‘The FOIA and the EIR apply to information held by public
authorities. They do not have to create new information to respond to
requests. A public authority is not creating new information where:
• it presents information it holds in the form of a list or schedule;
• compiling an answer to a request involves simple manual manipulation of
information held in files; or,
• it extracts information from an electronic database by searching it in
the form of a query.’

Therefore a public authority is not required to create new information or
provide opinion in order to respond to a request, unless it is already
contained within documents or other recorded form.  The ICO confirms this
point with advice on accessing information held by a public authority
under the FOIA and makes the following comment ‘Under the Freedom of
Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations you have a
right to request any recorded information held by a public authority, such
as a government department, local council or state school. Environmental
information requests can also be made to certain non-public bodies
carrying out a public function. You can ask for any information you think
a public authority may hold. The right only covers recorded information
which includes information held on computers, in emails and in printed or
handwritten documents as well as images, video and audio recordings.’
 Further advice on accessing information from a public authority can be
found by way of this link
http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/off...

History of request

The review has regard for your comment ‘I understand the refusal notice
and the detailed explanations provided …The reason I request this internal
review is that it would appear that the MPS hold other information about
this incident which has neither been released nor exempted.’ And later in
your further correspondence ‘Can you please ensure that your internal
review also checks that searches were made for information held as to the
Gold, Silver, Bronze command structure that was put in place for this
incident. There must be information describing this structure and at least
the rank and the unit for each of these commanders should be released
(names of the commanders have been released in several other serious
incidents so please consider releasing their names as well).’

For this reason then the review will focus on your comment that ‘it would
appear that the MPS hold other information about this incident which has
neither been released nor exempted.’ In order to consider all the factors
surrounding your request for information, namely ‘On the night of
2012-10-01, a disturbance occurred at the River House facility’ the review
has returned to your earlier requests and subsequent MPS responses. Please
note the procedural complaint dealt with under reference 2013110001522 is
not copied below.

1st request - received 28/09/2013

On the night of 1 October 2012, a disturbance occurred at the River House
facility operated by the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.
Assistance from the Metropolitan Police was first requested at 22:44 and
the first police officer from Bromley Police Station arrived promptly at
22:47

Can you send me the number of police officers who attended this incident,
their rank, the unit they were from (Bromley, TSG, etc) and their time of
arrival at and departure from the incident, as well as any other document
held by the MPS related to this incident.

Summary of MPS Response (reference 2013090002774) - 26/11/2013

Firstly, I would wish to offer sincere apologies for the delay in getting
this response to you especially when the conclusion of the MPS is that I
have to inform you that unfortunately it is not possible to respond to
your request within the cost threshold.

The subject of your request, disturbance at the River House facility, was
treated as a critical incident by the MPS and accordingly involved many
different police units, including, as you mention, members of the
Territorial Support Group. To assess who or may have relevant information
for this request at least 12 (Twelve) separate CAD messages, the MPS
electronic message system, were created and run for the incident
mentioned. Each CAD contains both individual officer numbers and call
sign's of vehicles dispatched to the scene, including TSG. What the CAD
does not show are the individual officers that made up the various crews,
i.e. In that the TSG vehicle could have contained six officers. Therefore,
in order to ascertain who individual officers were, other databases would
need to be searched in order to ascertain those facts.

Having attempted to identify all police officers that attended the
incident, the next element of your request involves identifying "any other
document" held by the MPS. It should be noted that Freedom of Information
relates to information held rather than actual documents, however in this
instance officers attending may have completed notes in pocket books,
along with entries in vehicle logs or indeed incident / decision logs.

Therefore, I would estimate that in order to determine whether the MPS
holds the information, i.e. to find out who exactly holds relevant
information, to locate the information, then to retrieve the information
and finally extract all pertinent information would exceed the appropriate
limit.

I estimate that to carry out the four elements described above would I
believe take at least an hour to examine all CAD reports to identify units
/ officers involved and then from each officer thus identified to carry
out the elements that make up the cost function would be at least another
20 hours of work, and quite possibly even then all relevant information
may not have been identified and therefore not located.

I would like to provide you with advice as to how you may narrow your
request so that it does not exceed the appropriate limit. You may wish to
limit your request to the number of officers involved and or for the final
report completed for the incident. Please note that if located and
retrieved information may be subject to exemptions prior to any
disclosure.

2nd Request - received 26/11/2013

Following you s16 assistance, I would like to limit my request to the
number of officers involved and which units they were from, and to the
final report completed for the incident.

Summary of MPS Response (reference 2013120000057) - 31/12/2013

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at Bromley Borough. The searches located records relevant to your
request.

The number of officers initially deployed were:
1 Inspector
1 Police Sergeant
10 Police Constables from the response team at Bromley.
 
The Inspector declared the incident  "otherwise so dangerous" and
requested Commissioners Reserve.
 
As a result further officers were deployed which were:  
2 Inspectors
3 Sergeants
21 Police Constables from the Territorial Support Group. (TSG)
6 Police Officers in two vehicles from the Armed Response Unit (ARV) -
These were stood down upon the arrival of the TSG
2 Police Officers from the Dog Unit (with two dogs) - These were stood
down upon the arrival of the TSG
1 Detective Sergeant, 1 Detective Constable from Bromley

Despite our searches there is no information held in regards to the final
report.

3rd Request - received 15/1/2014

On the night of 2012-10-01, a disturbance occurred at the River House
facility operated by the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.
The MPS treated this disturbance 'as a critical incident'.   From a
previous request on this topic I understand that 'there is no information
held in regards to the final report.  ' Can you please send me information
held by the MPS describing this critical incident, whether this is in the
form of a (non-final) report and/or 'incident / decision logs' or other
form that is retrievable within the acceptable time/cost limit.

Summary of MPS Response (reference 2014010001589) - 13/02/2014

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
on MPS systems and with Bromley Borough. The searches located records
relevant to your request. The records held include ten CAD reports and
one CRIMINT report.  The CADs relate to the 999 call and subsequent
dispatch of officers, the CRIMINT is an intelligence report. I have been
informed that on Incident Management Log was created however despite
searches on borough and with the senior investigating officer I have not
been able to locate this document. Furthermore one document refers to a
meeting in which this matter was to be discussed, again no further
information could be found in respect of this meeting which may or may not
have occurred.

The MPS rarely disclose CAD records other than to the person who made the
999 call.  This is because the report is considered the personal data of
the caller and the dispatch of officers often reveals our response and
this constitutes operational or tactical information.  In this instance
the reports also contain health related data which is sensitive personal
data as defined by the Data Protection Act, Section 2(e).  Similarly
CRIMINT reports contain intelligence and will also, in most cases, contain
personal data. Due to the reasons outlined above I have decided to refuse
access to the held information.  I have applied the exemptions provided
under Section 31 and Section 40 of the Act.  These refer to Law
Enforcement and Personal Data respectively.

The information requested contains details of the police deployment to the
incident specified.  This contains both specific information relating to
the locations of officers and other public services within the grounds of
the hospital and more general information relating to the incident and our
response.  If this information was to be published via the Freedom of
Information Act it would be likely to cause prejudice to our ability to
successfully deal with similar incidents either at the same location or
elsewhere.

It is accepted that there will be a degree of public interest in the
matter described both in respect of the initial incident and in the police
response.  Disclosure of the requested information would show that the
police dealt with the matter in an effective and appropriate way. It would
not be in the best interests of the public to provide any information that
would or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime
or that apprehension or prosecution of offenders.  In this instance the
specific details of the police deployments and decisions taken would be
likely to have a detrimental impact on our ability to enforce the law.  

The information requested constitutes personal data of both the caller and
the alleged offender.   Furthermore as this data relates to criminal
investigations it is also considered sensitive personal data contained as
defined by Section 2(g) & (h) of the Data Protection Act.  Sensitive
personal data is afforded further safeguards from disclosure. Having
reviewed the requested data I have decided that disclosure of this
information would breach principle one of the Data Protection Act, fair
and lawful processing.  

The review gives attention to your comment in your request for review ‘I
understand the refusal notice and the detailed explanations provided by Mr
Edwards. The reason I request this internal review is that it would appear
that the MPS hold other information about this incident which has neither
been released nor exempted. ‘In this regard the review returns to your
first request (2013090002774) which includes a request for ‘…as well as
any other document held by the MPS related to this incident.’ In that
response the MPS advised it would exceed the appropriate threshold in
regards to this aspect of your request for ‘any other documents‘ and
stated ‘I estimate that to carry out the four elements described above
would I believe take at least an hour to examine all CAD reports to
identify units / officers involved and then from each officer thus
identified to carry out the elements that make up the cost function would
be at least another 20 hours of work, and quite possibly even then all
relevant information may not have been identified and therefore not
located.’

Under section 16 FoIA you were provided with advice and assistance in how
you may narrow your request by limiting your request to the number of
officers involved and or for the final report completed for the incident.
Following this advice you narrowed the initial request to ‘the number of
officers involved and which units they were from, and to the final report
completed for the incident.’ The MPS responded to this narrowed request,
under reference 2013120000057, by providing you with the number of
officers involved and the units to which they were attached at the time of
the incident.  You were also advised ‘Despite our searches there is no
information held in regards to the final report.’

In your latest request, reference 2014010001589 you requested the
following information ‘From a previous request on this topic I understand
that 'there is no information held in regards to the final report.’ Can
you please send me information held by the MPS describing this critical
incident…’ You clarified this at the time by stating ‘…whether this is in
the form of a (non-final) report and/or 'incident / decision logs' or
other form that is retrievable within the acceptable time/cost limit.’ On
the 13th February 2014 the MPS advised you that ‘The records held include
ten CAD reports and one CRIMINT report.  The CADs relate to the 999 call
and subsequent dispatch of officers, the CRIMINT is an intelligence
report.’  In regards to other information the MPS advised ‘ I have been
informed that on Incident Management Log was created however despite
searches on borough and with the senior investigating officer I have not
been able to locate this document.’ Also in regards to other information
you were advised ‘Furthermore one document refers to a meeting in which
this matter was to be discussed, again no further information could be
found in respect of this meeting which may or may not have occurred.’ The
review has read the CAD and Crimint mentioned in this response and is
satisfied that this is relevant information pertinent to your original
request for ‘information held by the MPS describing this critical
incident…’ Further the review upholds the original decision in this case
to exempt the CAD and Crimint records by virtue of section 31(1)(a)&(b)
FoIA - Law enforcement and section 40(2)&(3)(a)(i) FoIA - personal
information.

In regards to your further comment ‘Can you please ensure that your
internal review also checks that searches were made for information held
as to the Gold, Silver, Bronze command structure that was put in place for
this incident…’ The review can confirm that such searches were conducted
in regards to your latest request for information held.  However, in
respect of any further information the review refers to the response
provided to you in your latest request namely that’ Furthermore one
document refers to a meeting in which this matter was to be discussed,
again no further information could be found in respect of this meeting
which may or may not have occurred.’ You have also been advised in your
second request that ’The number of officers initially deployed were: 1
Inspector 1 Police Sergeant 10 Police Constables from the response team
at Bromley. The Inspector declared the incident “otherwise so dangerous"
and requested Commissioners Reserve.’ You have also been advised in your
latest request ‘‘I have been informed that on Incident Management Log was
created however despite searches on borough and with the senior
investigating officer I have not been able to locate this document.’

Appropriate threshold

Returning to your original request it remains the case that your request
will exceed the appropriate threshold in order to establish if held,
locate and extract ‘any other documents’ relating to this incident.  The
review is satisfied that the final report referred to in the first MPS
response under our duty to provide you with advice and assistance was in
fact referring to an Incident Management Log. You were advised in your
latest request that ‘I have been informed that on Incident Management Log
was created however despite searches on borough and with the senior
investigating officer I have not been able to locate this document.’
 Further enquiries have been made by this review and despite further
searches this incident management log cannot be located.

Section 12(2) of the FoIA provides that subsection (1) does not exempt a
public authority from its obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of
section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that paragraph
alone would exceed the appropriate limit. The review takes note of your
comment in your request for a review ‘I look forward for this internal
review to finding information about this incident that is held and has not
been exempted.’

To date in excess of 12 hours has already been spent by MPS staff in
trying to locate and extract relevant information pertinent to your
request for information held by the MPS concerning the incident you refer
to on the 1st October 2012.  I estimate that it will exceed the
appropriate threshold in order to determine if held and then locate and
extract all relevant information pertaining to this incident.

The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) advises on using the Fees
regulations  ‘Section 12 makes it clear that a public authority does not
have to make a precise calculation of the costs of complying with a
request.  Only an estimate is required ... what amounts to a reasonable
estimate can only be considered on a case by case basis.'  The ICO also
clarifies 'where a reasonable estimate has been made that the appropriate
limit would be exceeded, there is no requirement for a public authority to
undertake work up to the limit.’  

The ICO reminds public authorities ‘Regulation 4(3) of the Fees
Regulations states that a public authority can only take into account the
cost it reasonably expects to incur in carrying out the following
permitted activities in complying with the request:

·        Determining whether the information is held;
·        Locating the information, or document containing it;
·        Retrieving the information, or a document containing it; and
·        Extracting the information from a document containing it.’

Your request for ‘it would appear that the MPS hold other information
about this incident which has neither been released nor exempted’ means
that your request is broad in scope and will require open ended searches
as it would not be possible to be certain that all of the information
within the scope of your request had been identified. Therefore, once
potentially relevant documents have been located, it would be necessary to
identify and extract the information relevant to your request.  At a
minimum, this would require reading the relevant documents. The broad
scope of your request means that information that is not relevant to your
request may need to be read manually in order to identify relevant
information for this incident between the dates of this incident on 1st
October 2012 and the date of your request.

Section 16 provides an obligation for a public authority to provide advice
and assistance to a person making a request, so far as it would be
reasonable to do so. I would like to provide you with some advice in how
to narrow your request. However in this case the MPS has previously
provided you with advice on how to narrow your request on the same
incident and later advised that the Incident Management Log cannot be
located. It is this element of your request which will entail a member of
police staff reading through hundreds of records which may even then not
contain the information you are seeking.

Additional Information located during review

I can advise you that during this review it was decided to carry out
further searches in an attempt to locate all the information you are
seeking, whilst the Incident Management Log was not located the review
established the MPS holds in addition to the CAD and Crimint, additionally
14 Evidence and Action Books (EABs), a Duty Officer handover summary and 4
taser return forms. Having located and considered this information the
review is satisfied that the same exemptions that applied to the Cads and
Crimint report are also relevant to these additional records. Therefore on
this occasion the review has considered the harm in release of this
additional information and has exempted further disclosure by virtue of
section 31(1)(a)(b) FoIA governing Law enforcement and section
40(2)(3)(a)(i) FoIA governing personal information. Please see Appendix A
for the reasons as to why these exemptions are engaged in this case.

MPS Press line

I would like to provide you with further assistance and advise you of the
following MPS Press line, dated 28/01/2014, and therefore was not held at
the time of your requests.

IF ASKED: Q1. Why were armed officers deployed in this incident?

= The Metropolitan Police Service was called to Bethlem Royal Hospital at
22:44 hours on Monday 1st October 2012. The incident was treated as
significant as the location is known to officers as housing high-risk
mental health patients. There was a serious threat to staff safety, and
some patients, whose medical history was not known to officers, were
unsupervised and believed armed with furniture and access to a kitchen
area containing knives.

The on call duty Inspector, acting on the information provided by the
hospital, developed a tactical response using the widest range of
resources available to a highly charged incident by deploying resources
appropriate to bring the situation under control while ensuring the safety
of staff and patients.

The deployment of the two Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs) to the scene was
for the ability to provide Taser if required. The ARV officers did not in
fact enter the hospital and were released from the scene upon the arrival
of the Territorial Support Group, who were themselves equipped with
Tasers.

Q2: Does the Met have a policy on the deployment of armed police to
incidents that take place in mental health units?

= The MPS does not have a specific policy in relation to the deployment of
firearms officers to mental health units.

Firearms officers are deployed to incidents where firearms or weapons are
involved. Decisions to deploy firearms officers will include consideration
around the type of premises and the persons concerned.

Q3. Do you recognise the concerns from campaigners about the use of armed
police in mental health incidents?

= The MPS takes onboard concerns raised around the use of armed officers
to mental health incidents and always places the safety of the public
paramount.

Met firearms officers attend special training days where they work with
mental health workers and patients to assist them in understanding and
responding to people who suffer from mental health issues. We have
introduced information sharing protocols to obtain fast time intelligence
about any person who may be considered EMD (Emotionally or Mentally
Distressed) or suffering behavioural disorders. Training around mental
health issues is also included as part of officers on going training as
well as forming part of the NPFTC (National Police Firearms Training
Curriculum) instruction courses for firearms officers.

In September 2012, the Commissioner requested an independent commission to
look at the MPS response to mental health. It was also asked to examine
the interface between the MPS, mental health services and other partners.

Since the report by Lord Adebowale was published in May 2013, the MPS has
fundamentally looked again at how we work as an organisation, and with
partner agencies, to improve services, share information and better
understand the needs of people with mental ill health with the aim of
delivering a service that can be best adapted to fit individual needs.

The 28 Recommendations within the Independent Commission report on Mental
Health and Policing (2013) are being progressed and embedded in the
direction of travel for policing, both locally and nationally.

We continue to work locally across London and nationally with partners
across the health spectrum and we have also contributed to the forthcoming
Department of Health Crisis Care Concordat. This is where a number of
national organisations have committed to work together to support local
systems to achieve systematic and continuous improvements for crisis care
for people with Mental Health issues.

The MPS are also in the process of rolling out the Community Risk MARAC
group (Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference) and a pilot is currently
underway in all NW London Boroughs. This is a local partnership forum,
where high risk and developing cases can be discussed and problem solved.

The MPS are also in the process of training all front line officers in the
Vulnerability Assessment Framework (VAF). The VAF is a simple
investigative approach to assessing vulnerability, in all interactions the
police have with the public.

The MPS is committed to delivering a quality of service and care for all
those who come into contact with the MPS - especially those who are at
their most vulnerable through mental ill health or crisis.

Conclusion

I hope the explanation provided clarifies why on this occasion the MPS has
subsequently engaged12 (2) FoIA - where the cost of compliance with your
request exceeds the appropriate limit of 18 hours.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
FoIA Quality and Assurance Advisor

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

Appendix A

Section 31(1)(a)(b) FoIA - Law enforcement

The review can advise that section 31(1) states that information which is
not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if
its disclosure under this Act would, or would likely to, prejudice -

(a) the prevention or detection of crime
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders

Further reference can be found by way of this link:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

The ICO guidance points to the fact this exemption is a two-stage test.
 Firstly, can a public authority establish that disclosure of the
information would prejudice, or would be likely to prejudice, any of the
areas of law enforcement listed in section 31 (i.e. prevention or
detection of crime and apprehension or prosecution of offenders).
Secondly, if so, is the public interest in favour of maintaining the
exemption and therefore withholding the information.

The ICO advises ‘although there must be a casual link, the prejudice test
relates to something that may happen in the future, if the information
were disclosed.  Therefore it is not usually possible to provide concrete
proof that the prejudice would or would be likely to result.
 Nevertheless…there must be more than a mere assertion or belief that
disclosure would lead to prejudice. There must be a logical connection
between the disclosure and the prejudice in order to engage the
exemption.’ The review is further guided by the ICO who states ‘in
considering the application of the exemption, a public authority should
concentrate on the effect of disclosure in order to assess whether there
is any likely prejudice to any law enforcement activities listed in the
exemption. There is no need to consider why the information is held’. The
review also has regard for the same guidance in the general areas of law
enforcement which states under the heading apprehending or prosecution of
offenders ‘it could cover activities both in relation to specific
instances of the apprehension and prosecution of offenders and to the
general strategies, processes and policies established for these
purposes…’

In this respect the review takes into consideration the comments provided
in the original response, which is equally relevant in respect of this
further information located, namely ‘The information requested contains
details of the police deployment to the incident specified.  This contains
both specific information relating to the locations of officers and other
public services within the grounds of the hospital and more general
information relating to the incident and our response.  If this
information was to be published via the Freedom of Information Act it
would be likely to cause prejudice to our ability to successfully deal
with similar incidents either at the same location or elsewhere.’

The review also supports the same view that ‘It is accepted that there
will be a degree of public interest in the matter described both in
respect of the initial incident and in the police response.  Disclosure of
the requested information would show that the police dealt with the matter
in an effective and appropriate way. It would not be in the best interests
of the public to provide any information that would or would be likely to
prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or that apprehension or
prosecution of offenders.  In this instance the specific details of the
police deployments and decisions taken would be likely to have a
detrimental impact on our ability to enforce the law.’  

Information Tribunal EA/2005/0026 and EA/2005/0030
(http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB...)
 states ‘When considering the existence of ‘prejudice’, the public
authority needs to consider the issue from the perspective that the
disclosure is being effectively made to the general public as a whole,
rather than simply the individual applicant, since any disclosure may not
be made subject to any conditions governing subsequent use’ The review is
satisfied that after weighing up the competing issues that the disclosure
of the above information would not be in the public interest and consider
the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does
not outweigh the arguments favouring non-disclosure.  

The review is therefore satisfied that section 31(1)(a) (b) FoIA is
appropriately engaged in this case.

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

For this aspect of your complaint the review has returned to your original
request for information concerning an incident on the 1st October 2012 at
the River House facility. It is on this basis the review is 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 any
person involved 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 matter. Further reference 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...

The ICO in Decision Notice FS50419834
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...
states in deciding whether the disclosure of the requested information
would be fair the Commissioner took into account the following factors,
which the review finds relevant in this case:

·        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 these same factors and after
weighing up the competing interests the review has determined that any
further disclosure of the above information would not be in the public
interest. The review is further guided by the 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 contained within the held
information does not outweigh disclosing this further information. The
Tribunal appeal can be found by way of this link:
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB...

The review is therefore satisfied that any further disclosure of personal
data, as contained within the held information, by way of a FoIA
disclosure to the World, would not be fair and therefore finds that
section 40(2)(3) FoIA is appropriately engaged in this case.

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

Dear Mr Lyng,

Thank you for your detailed review. I remain concerned by the two following issues:

1) that you exempted the '4 taser return forms [...] by virtue of section 31(1)(a)(b) FoIA governing Law enforcement and section 40(2)(3)(a)(i) FoIA governing personal information' considering that AC Mark Rowley in his letter to Baroness Jenny Jones dated 2014-03-05 mentioned some information ('4 officers had their Taser drawn') that must be coming from these four forms. This demonstrates that these forms should not be exempted or at the very least cannot be exempted in their entirety.

2) and that the 'Incident Management Log was not located', i.e., that a key report for a recent 'critical incident' can be lost.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery, An internal review (ref: 2014020001741) has been completed in relation to your Freedom of Information Act request (ref:2014010001589). Once an internal review has been completed, the next stage of the Freedom of Information Act complaints process is to exercise your right to appeal to the Information Commissioner.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner please visit their website at:

www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Alternatively, phone or write to:

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


Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
FoIA Quality and Assurance Advisor

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

4 Attachments

Dear Mr. Mery,

Freedom of Information Appeal to Information Commissioner, MPS Reference
No: 2014050000339  (ICO Ref:FS50538507)

Following discussions with the Information Commissioner's Office the
Metropolitan Police Service has assessed your request again and following
that assessment have decided that disclosure of the information is,
subject to some personal information being redacted, appropriate in the
circumstances. Indeed It is recognised that you were content for personal
information to be withheld.

I am sorry that it has taken time to resolve, however please find attached
to this case four records pertinent to your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please feel
free to contact me on 02071613649 or at the address at the top of this
letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Shankster
Senior Information Manager
Information Law and Security Group

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 Shankster,

Thank you for deciding to disclose the four Taser records. However I also note that you have not yet addressed the other aspect of my complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office, which concerns the non-location of the Incident Management Log.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Mery

Thank you for getting back to me. I will take up the issue of incident management log with the Information Commissioner's Office.

Regards

Nigel Shankster

show quoted sections

David Mery left an annotation ()

Information from the received Taser forms has been sent as a supplementary evidence to the Home Affairs Committee's inquiry into policing and mental health: http://gizmonaut.net/blog/uk/2014/06/hac...

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org