Safe transport of detainees on arrest in London

The request was successful.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please provide me with

1) The ‘Police Driver & Vehicle - Vehicles & Equipment SOP’

2) The ‘Officer Safety Training SOPs’.

3) 'Policy' documents held in electronic format identified as relevant to the safe transport of detainees from arrest to a custody suite.

4) 'Training' documents held in electronic format identified as relevant to the safe transport of detainees from arrest to a custody suite.

5) For each month for the past five years, per borough (if possible), the number of 'collisions on a road or other public place where a police vehicle was directly involved' (as recorded on the Police Collisions Database). Please provide this data in a spreadsheet format such as Excel readable format.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012060000846
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 09/06/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Please provide me with         1) The ‘Police Driver & Vehicle -
Vehicles & Equipment SOP’         2) The ‘Officer Safety Training
SOPs’.         3) 'Policy' documents held in electronic format
identified as     relevant to the safe transport of detainees from
arrest to a     custody suite.         4) 'Training' documents held in
electronic format identified as     relevant to the safe transport of
detainees from arrest to a     custody suite.         5) For each
month for the past five years, per borough (if     possible), the
number of 'collisions on a road or other public     place where a
police vehicle was directly involved' (as recorded on     the Police
Collisions Database). Please provide this data in a     spreadsheet
format such as Excel readable format.    

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

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

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
write or contact Yvette Taylor on telephone number 0207 230 6267
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your
request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012060000846
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 09/06/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Please provide me with         1) The ‘Police Driver & Vehicle -
Vehicles & Equipment SOP’         2) The ‘Officer Safety Training
SOPs’.         3) 'Policy' documents held in electronic format
identified as     relevant to the safe transport of detainees from
arrest to a     custody suite.         4) 'Training' documents held in
electronic format identified as     relevant to the safe transport of
detainees from arrest to a     custody suite.         5) For each
month for the past five years, per borough (if     possible), the
number of 'collisions on a road or other public     place where a
police vehicle was directly involved' (as recorded on     the Police
Collisions Database). Please provide this data in a     spreadsheet
format such as Excel readable format.    

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

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

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
write or contact Yvette Taylor on telephone number 0207 230 6267
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your
request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012060000846

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 09/06/2012.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

Please provide me with
   
1) The ‘Police Driver & Vehicle - Vehicles & Equipment SOP’
   
2) The ‘Officer Safety Training SOPs’.

3) 'Policy' documents held in electronic format identified as

     relevant to the safe transport of detainees from arrest to a

     custody suite.

4) 'Training' documents held in electronic format identified as

     relevant to the safe transport of detainees from arrest to a

     custody suite.
 
5) For each month for the past five years, per borough (if

     possible), the number of 'collisions on a road or other public

     place where a police vehicle was directly involved' (as recorded on

     the Police Collisions Database). Please provide this data in a

     spreadsheet format such as Excel readable format.

     
Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request.  I can confirm that the
information you have requested is held by the MPS.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at Specialist Crime and Operations.

Before I explain the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I
thought that it would be helpful to outline the parameters set out by the
Freedom of Information Act 2000, (The Act) within which a request for
information can be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public
authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if
permitted, state under Section 1(a) of the Act, whether it holds the
requested information and, if held, then communicate that information to
the applicant under Section 1(b) of the Act.

The 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.

Under the Act, there are two types of exemptions that can be applied to
information considered unsuitable for public release. These exemptions are
referred to as absolute exemptions and qualified exemptions. When an
absolute exemption is applied to information, a public authority is not
required to consider whether release of that information is in the 'public
interest'. When a qualified exemption is applied to information, a public
authority must establish whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing
or withholding the requested information. The public interest is
determined by conducting a 'Public Interest Test' (PIT). Both absolute and
qualified exemptions can be further divided into class-based or
prejudice-based exemptions. Class-based exemptions are those in which it
is assumed the disclosure of information would result in harm. There is
therefore no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be.
Prejudiced-based exemptions are those where firstly, it is necessary to
establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that may result from disclosure
and secondly, to determine the likelihood of the prejudice occurring.

I have considered your request for information within the provisions set
out by the Freedom of the Act. Please see the Legal Annex for all the
sections of the Act referred to in this response.

Q1) The ‘Police Driver & Vehicle - Vehicles & Equipment SOP’

DECISION  

I have today decided to disclose the MPS Police Driver and Vehicle -
Vehicles and Equipment Standard Operating Procedure subject to the
deletion of information pursuant to the provisions of section 31(a)(b) of
the Act 2000.

I exempt disclosure of the remaining information contained within the
policy by virtue of Section 31(1)(a)(b).

Information which is not relevant to the request has also been redacted
from the disclosed document. For example, contact names and telephone
numbers and links to internal MPS websites.

The text redacted under Section 31(1)(a)(b) contains information which, if
released, would be likely to prejudice the ability of the MPS to prevent
and detect crime or apprehend and prosecute offenders.

I am required to withhold sensitive operational information contained
within the policy. Disclosure would likely create an awareness of specific
policing tactics and detailed information about specifications of
equipment and vehicles used, which may prejudice our ability to prevent
crime and enforce the law.  

Disclosure of the redacted information, if put into the public domain,
could provide offenders with a valuable insight into police tactics and
the effectiveness or limitations of police equipment and vehicles. This
may adversely compromise future policing opportunities, thus reducing the
effectiveness of these tactics, equipment and vehicles

Section 31 is a prejudice and qualified exemption. I am therefore required
to provide you with evidence of harm and a public interest test on the
applicability of this exemption, for information within the documents.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) Evidence of Harm

I believe disclosure of some of the information would cause operational
harm to the MPS and affect our ability to fulfil our core function of law
enforcement.

The policy contains specific tactics and information about the
specifications of equipment and vehicles used by the MPS for the
prevention and reduction of crime.

Whilst it is reasonable to assume that police tactics, equipment and
vehicles will develop and evolve continually, the withheld information
contains law enforcement tactics, strategies, contingencies and
methodology which could be utilised when planning for future deployments.
Disclosure of such information would harm the ability of the MPS to fulfil
its core role of law enforcement effectively in the future.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) Public Interest Test

Considerations favouring disclosure

There is a recognised public interest in accountability for decisions made
by the MPS.  In this instance full disclosure of the information would
enable full public scrutiny of the usefulness and cost effectiveness of
police vehicles and equipment.

 
Considerations favouring non-disclosure

As I have explained previously, full disclosure of the policy would be
likely to create an awareness of specific policing tactics and provide
offenders with detailed information about capabilities and specifications
of equipment and vehicles used for the apprehension of offenders and the
prevention of crime. This may prejudice our ability to prevent crime and
enforce the law and may enable offenders to take steps in order to avoid
apprehension.  Clearly it would not be in the best interests of the public
to publish such information as it would also be likely to reduce the
effectiveness of police vehicles and equipment as resources for preventing
and detecting crime.

There are some who would seek to obtain tactical and strategic detail
within these documents to improve on their plans to avoid being detected
and apprehended. To disclose the exempt information contained within the
documents is likely to impact on police resources, should the MPS
continually have to make changes to their tactics, vehicles and equipment
due to a Freedom of Information Act disclosure.

Balance Test

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

Q3) 'Policy' documents held in electronic format identified as relevant to
the safe transport of detainees from arrest to a
custody suite.

 This information is provided in the policy document given in answer to
question 1.

Q4) 'Training' documents held in electronic format identified as relevant
to the safe transport of detainees from arrest to a custody suite.

This information is provided in the policy document given in answer to
question 1. The Standard Operating Policy provides guidance to officers on
the use of vehicles and equipment provided by the MPS and gives guidance
on the safe transport of passengers.

Q2) The ‘Officer Safety Training SOPs’.
Q5) For each month for the past five years, per borough (if possible), the
number of 'collisions on a road or other public place where a police
vehicle was directly involved' (as recorded on the Police Collisions
Database). Please provide this data in a spreadsheet format such as Excel
readable format.

DECISION

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act I have decided to
refuse access to the information you have requested.

The information you have requested for question 2  is available from the
MPS Publication Scheme. Please see the links below:

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

With regards to question 5, the following link contains a table on page 4
which gives statistics relating to police collisions

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

The following link is to a previous Freedom of Information request
regarding police collisions:

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

To access other information on the Publication Scheme please visit our
website at www.met.police.uk.  Alternatively you may contact the
Publication Scheme Co-ordinator using the following details:

The Publication Scheme Co-ordinator
Public Access Office
        PO Box 57192
        London
        SW6 1SF

E-mail: [email address]

Telephone: 0207 161 3500 (Option 3)
Facsimile: 0207 161 3501

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
the MPS.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Yvette Taylor on telephone number 0207 230 6267 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

The Information Commissioner

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

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

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

Legal Annex

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 21 of the Act provides:

(1)        Information which is reasonably accessible to the application
otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information…

(3)        For the purposes of subsection (1), information which is held
by a public authority and does not fall within subsection (2)(b) is not to
be regarded as reasonably accessible to the applicant merely because the
information is available from the public authority itself on request,
unless the information is made available in accordance with the
authority’s publication scheme and any payment required is specified in,
or determined in accordance with, the scheme.

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

(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,
(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice
any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

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 Ms Taylor,

Many thanks for the information included in and linked to from your response. Unfortunately the response is lacking some requested information that has not been exempted:

a) p. 14 (out of the 48) of the redacted Police Driver and Vehicle - Vehicle and Equipment SOP is missing.

b) The ‘Officer Safety Training SOP’ is missing. The links provided to related documents are to the 'Officer Safety Training in the Metropolitan Police Service' policy (which lists the requested document in 'Associated Documents and Policies' section at the bottom of the document), and to the 'Officer Safety Training Policy – Monitoring Report'.

c) One of the linked document, a previous FoI, lists the following numbers of collisions for 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10: 4,635, 4,128, and 3,886. Another, the 'Police Driver and Vehicle Policy', lists the following numbers for 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11: 5160, 4631, 4422 and 4034. There's no explanation of the discrepancy between the numbers for the same years and no more recent data provided (as per my request) or linked to. From the earlier FoI response linked to, I see that the system used to record collisions can extract not only the number of collisions per year, but also the number of casualties and fatalities. I would very much appreciate if you can extract these two additional data as well for the past five years (I'd be happy to request them in another FoI request if you prefer, but it would save time for your service to do it in the same database request).

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

I will be working away from the office on Friday, 5th July 2012. If you
have any urgent FOI enquiries please contact  Ben Sayers 61380

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery

Thank you for your E-mail dated 8/7/12.

With respect to (a, page 14 is included but it is slightly out of sequence. It follows after page 15. Apologies for any confusion.

With respect to (c) there is a difference in figures as different criteria have been used to generate the statistics. The lower figures relate to ' collisions involving police vehicles on public roads in London' whereas the higher figure is for 'total Police collision'. The latter includes collisions outside of the MPS district.

Given the explanation above, please could you confirm your additional Freedom of Information requests. Once your confirmation is received, I will forward your requests to our Public Access Office.

Thank you

Yvette Taylor

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Taylor,

Many thanks for your very prompt explanations. In light of these I confirm that what remains missing is:

1) The ‘Officer Safety Training SOP’.

Explanation: the links provided to related documents are to the 'Officer Safety Training in the Metropolitan Police Service' policy (which lists the requested document in 'Associated Documents and Policies' section at the bottom of the document), and to the 'Officer Safety Training Policy – Monitoring Report'.

2) The number of collisions, casualties and fatalities for the past five years.

Explanation: the data has not been provided for the requested period. It appears from the two relevant linked document that you can only retrieve this information for the whole MPS and on a yearly basis; this limitation is acceptable. You explained that you have two sources for this data either collisions in London or collisions including those that happened outside of the MPS district; please provide both or either, but please specify which is provided. As the linked earlier FoI shows that the database system holding this information also records the number of casualties and fatalities, I would very much appreciate if you can extract these two additional data as well for the past five years (again please specify if this has been extracted for London only or also includes MPS collisions outside London). Including these two additional data would save time for your service as they likely can be extracted in the same database request used to extract the number of collisions, if that is not the case I'd be happy to request them in another FoI request.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery

Thank you for your E-Mail dated 10th July 2012. I have forwarded your
Freedom of Information requests to our Public Access Office. You will
receive acknowledgement shortly.

Thank you

Yvette Taylor

show quoted sections

[email address]

show quoted sections

Room 902, Tower Block, New Scotland Yard, 10 Broadway, London SW1H 0BG

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information Act Request Reference No: 2012070001376
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 10/07/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

·          1) The ‘Officer Safety Training SOP’.         Explanation: the
links provided to related documents are to the     'Officer Safety
Training in the Metropolitan Police Service' policy     (which lists the
requested document in 'Associated Documents and     Policies' section at
the bottom of the document), and to the     'Officer Safety Training
Policy – Monitoring Report'.         2) The number of collisions,
casualties and fatalities for the past     five years.        
Explanation: the data has not been provided for the requested     period.
It appears from the two relevant linked document that you     can only
retrieve this information for the whole MPS and on a     yearly basis;
this limitation is acceptable. You explained that you     have two sources
for this data either collisions in London or     collisions including
those that happened outside of the MPS     district; please provide both
or either, but please specify which     is provided. As the linked earlier
FoI shows that the database     system holding this information also
records the number of     casualties and fatalities, I would very much
appreciate if you can     extract these two additional data as well for
the past five years     (again please specify if this has been extracted
for London only or     also includes MPS collisions outside London).
Including these two     additional data would save time for your service
as they likely can     be extracted in the same database request used to
extract the     number of collisions, if that is not the case I'd be happy
to     request them in another FoI request.         Yours faithfully,    
    David Mery

With regards to the second part of your request, Traffic Command have
provided me with some information but the information includes not only
incidents involving MPS officers in and outside the MPS area but also
incidents involving home county officers involved in collisions within the
MPS district. To determine which of the incidents dating back to 2007
relates to MPS officers only would likely attract a cost exemption to your
request. Kindly advise me if you would be content with information which
includes home county officers also.

I would be grateful if you would contact me before 1st September 2012

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Yvette Taylor on telephone number 0207 230 6267 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Ms Taylor,

As per your request, this is to advise you I would be content with information which includes home county officers also for the second part of my request.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

I am out of the office until Wednesday, 8th August 2012. If you have any
urgent enquiries regarding Freedom of Information please contact 020 7230
(6) 2372 or E-mail sc&[email address]

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012070001376

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 10/07/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

*   1) The ‘Officer Safety Training SOP’.         Explanation: the links
provided to related documents are to the     'Officer Safety Training
in the Metropolitan Police Service' policy     (which lists the
requested document in 'Associated Documents and     Policies' section
at the bottom of the document), and to the     'Officer Safety
Training Policy – Monitoring Report'.         2) The number of
collisions, casualties and fatalities for the past     five years.    
    Explanation: the data has not been provided for the requested    
period. It appears from the two relevant linked document that you    
can only retrieve this information for the whole MPS and on a    
yearly basis; this limitation is acceptable. You explained that you  
  have two sources for this data either collisions in London or    
collisions including those that happened outside of the MPS    
district; please provide both or either, but please specify which    
is provided. As the linked earlier FoI shows that the database    
system holding this information also records the number of    
casualties and fatalities, I would very much appreciate if you can    
extract these two additional data as well for the past five years    
(again please specify if this has been extracted for London only or  
  also includes MPS collisions outside London). Including these two  
  additional data would save time for your service as they likely can
    be extracted in the same database request used to extract the    
number of collisions, if that is not the case I'd be happy to    
request them in another FoI request.         Yours faithfully,        
David Mery

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering
whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified
exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest
before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application
of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can
extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are
currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the
information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond
within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemptions:

Section 31(1)(a)&(b) - Law enforcement
Section 38(1)(b) - Health and Safety

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 7th September
2012, however I will endevour to provide you with a response much sooner.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

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 230 6267 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Mery
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012070001376

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 10/07/2012.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

1) The ‘Officer Safety Training SOP’.         Explanation: the links
provided to related documents are to the     'Officer Safety Training in
the Metropolitan Police Service' policy     (which lists the requested
document in 'Associated Documents and     Policies' section at the bottom
of the document), and to the     'Officer Safety Training Policy –
Monitoring Report'.        

2) The number of collisions, casualties and fatalities for the past    
five years.         Explanation: the data has not been provided for the
requested     period. It appears from the two relevant linked document
that you     can only retrieve this information for the whole MPS and on a
    yearly basis; this limitation is acceptable. You explained that you  
  have two sources for this data either collisions in London or    
collisions including those that happened outside of the MPS     district;
please provide both or either, but please specify which     is provided.
As the linked earlier FoI shows that the database     system holding this
information also records the number of     casualties and fatalities, I
would very much appreciate if you can     extract these two additional
data as well for the past five years     (again please specify if this has
been extracted for London only or     also includes MPS collisions outside
London). Including these two     additional data would save time for your
service as they likely can     be extracted in the same database request
used to extract the     number of collisions, if that is not the case I'd
be happy to     request them in another FoI request.         Yours
faithfully,         David Mery

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

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within Specialist Crime and Operations and Traffic Occupational Command
Unit.

1) The ‘Officer Safety Training SOP’.

 
     Explanation: the links provided to related documents are to the

     'Officer Safety Training in the Metropolitan Police Service' policy

     (which lists the requested document in 'Associated Documents and

     Policies' section at the bottom of the document), and to the

     'Officer Safety Training Policy – Monitoring Report'.

   
I have considered your request for information within the provisions set
out by the Freedom of Information Act (the Act). Please see the Legal
Annex for all the sections of the Act referred to in this response.

I have today decided to disclose the Officer Safety Training Standard
Operating Procedures subject to the deletion of information pursuant to
the provisions of the following sections of the Act:

Section 31(1)(a)&(b) - Law Enforcement
Section 38(1)(b) - Health and Safety

Additionally, information which is not relevant to the request has also
been redacted from the disclosed document. For example, contact names and
addresses and links to internal MPS websites and forms.

Under the Act, there are two types of exemptions that can be applied to
information considered unsuitable for public release. These exemptions are
referred to as absolute exemptions and qualified exemptions. When an
absolute exemption is applied to information, a public authority is not
required to consider whether release of that information is in the 'public
interest'. When a qualified exemption is applied to information, a public
authority must establish whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing
or withholding the requested information. The public interest is
determined by conducting a 'Public Interest Test' (PIT).

Both absolute and qualified exemptions can be further divided into
class-based or prejudice-based exemptions. Class-based exemptions are
those in which it is assumed the disclosure of information would result in
harm. There is therefore no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may
be. Prejudiced-based exemptions are those where firstly, it is necessary
to establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that may result from
disclosure and secondly, to determine the likelihood of the prejudice
occurring.

Section 31(1)(a)&(b) - Law Enforcement
Section 38(1)(b) - Health and Safety

Both these exemptions are qualified and prejudice based therefore we are
required to consider the prejudice that would be likely to be caused from
disclosure.  Additionally we are required to consider whether the public
interest considerations outweigh the identified prejudice or, conversely,
support the maintenance of the exemption.

Under Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Act, public authorities are able to
withhold information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to,
prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or
prosecution of offenders.

Under Section 38(1)(b) of the Act, public authorities are able to withhold
information where its release would, or would be likely endanger the
safety of any individual.
 
Prejudice Test

We have applied these exemptions because the MPS Officer Safety Training
Standard Operating procedure forms an essential part of officer safety
training in the MPS.  This training documentation is vital in ensuring
officer competence in the use of officer safety equipment and therefore is
intrinsically linked to both officer and public safety.

The MPS Officer Safety Training Standard Operating covers a wide range of
information that, when combined with other training material, greatly
assists with an officer's ability to deal with violent or potentially
violent individuals.  

The document includes specifications of police equipment and tactical
information. This information, if examined by the offender, would provide
them with a tactical advantage over the police service.  

This risk is three fold.  Principally offenders, with detailed knowledge
of police equipment capabilities and tactical information, would alter
their behaviour to counter police tactics.  This would enable offenders to
resist arrest, thus enabling them to escape and avoid prosecution.
 Offenders would, with this knowledge, also be likely to have greater
confidence in committing crime, leading to further crime being committed.
 Thirdly, detailed knowledge of police equipment, tactics and techniques
would render police officers at greater risk of harm from the offender.
This would also place offenders at greater risk as it is likely that
greater force may be required, in particular in detaining individuals,
than would otherwise be necessary.

Public Interest Test

Please find the public interest test considerations that we have
identified and considered in relation to the application of Section
31(1)(a)(b) and Section 38(1)(b) of the Act.

Considerations favouring disclosure.

The general public rightly expects police officers to have the necessary
training and appropriate equipment for preventing and combating crime and
disorder.  The release of the requested information would show that the
MPS has a comprehensive and clearly documented procedure for safely
engaging with offenders without putting them and the general public at
risk.

The MPS is committed to building closer relationships with the communities
it polices, of which an important part is to share information of public
interest.  In this case, the release in full of the requested Officer
Safety Training Standard Operating Procedure would ensure that the general
public has a full understanding of specific defence techniques, tactics
and equipment, facilitating an informed and accurate public debate in this
area of policing.

Considerations favouring non-disclosure.

One of the principle roles of the Police Service is to prevent and detect
crime.  As already described in the prejudice test, it is likely that
offenders would use the Officer Safety Training Standard Operating
Procedure to gain knowledge of police techniques and tactics and detailed
specifications of equipment used by officers and subsequently alter their
behaviour enabling them to commit further crime.  

Offenders who are armed with a detailed knowledge of police techniques,
tactics and equipment specifications would feel more confident in
committing crime as they would be able to identify vulnerabilities.  This
could lead to further crime being committed by offenders and would put
officers at risk of harm.

There are occasions where the release of information relating to police
techniques, tactics and equipment specifications would have an adverse
effect upon public safety and hinder our ability to enforce the law.   It
would not be in the best interest of the public to disclose information
that would put them at risk and therefore this consideration carries
increased weight.

Balancing Test

When balancing the public interest test, we have to consider whether the
public interest lies in favour of releasing information into the public
domain or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding the
requested information. Though we accept that complete transparency in
response to requests concerning police techniques, tactics and equipment
would engage the general public and thus facilitate informed public
debate, there is a considerable risk that release would make detaining,
arresting or searching the offender more difficult and dangerous. Clearly
the release of any information that is likely to assist the offender
cannot be in the public interest.  

2) The number of collisions, casualties and fatalities for the past    
five years.         Explanation: the data has not been provided for the
requested     period. It appears from the two relevant linked document
that you     can only retrieve this information for the whole MPS and on a
    yearly basis; this limitation is acceptable. You explained that you  
  have two sources for this data either collisions in London or    
collisions including those that happened outside of the MPS     district;
please provide both or either, but please specify which     is provided.
As the linked earlier FoI shows that the database     system holding this
information also records the number of     casualties and fatalities, I
would very much appreciate if you can     extract these two additional
data as well for the past five years     (again please specify if this has
been extracted for London only or     also includes MPS collisions outside
London). Including these two     additional data would save time for your
service as they likely can     be extracted in the same database request
used to extract the     number of collisions, if that is not the case I'd
be happy to     request them in another FoI request.    

Decision

I have today decided to disclose the requested information. As discussed
in my E-Mail to you dated 3rd August 2012, the information regarding
police collisions may include incidents where MPS officers have been
involved in collisions outside of the MPS district. Similarly, the
information may include incidents where officers from other police forces
have been involved in collisions within the MPS area. I advised you to
determine which of these incidents dating back to 2007 related to non MPS
offices may attract a cost exemption to your request. On 4th August 2012,
you advised me that you were content for the information to include non
MPS officers.

Kindly note that 'collisions' encompasses a wide range of incidents. For
example,  incidents resulting in minor scratches to incidents resulting in
injuries to parties involved

Collisions on Public Roads or Public Places Involving Police Vehicles

1/8/2007 to 31/12/2007 - 1369 of which 235 resulted in injury.
1/1/2008 to 31/12/2008 - 3141 of which 444 resulted in injury
1/1/2009 to 31/12/2009 - 2966 of which 429 resulted in injury
1/1/2010 to 31/12/2010 - 2944 of which 389 resulted in injury
1/1/2011 to 31/11/2011 - 2741 of which 326 resulted in injury
1/1/2012 to 2/8/2012 - 1651 of which 192 resulted in injury

Collision on a Road where a Police Car was Involved April 2006 to March
2012

Please note that the information relates to fatal police collisions where
the driver was an MPS Officer for locations both inside and outside of the
MPS area.  

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
the MPS.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
E-Mail me or contact me on telephone number 0207 230 6267 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
SC & O Information Manager

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again -

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

The Information Commissioner

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

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

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

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.

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,

Section 38(1)(b) of the Act provides:

(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act
would, or would be likely to—
(b)endanger the safety of any individual.

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 Ms Taylor,

Thank you for this additional 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 'Safe transport of detainees on arrest in London'.

From the attached document Collision on a Road where a Police Car was Involved April 2006 to March 2012, it appears that you can run queries that would provide much better information to my request. If the query used to generate this spreadsheet could be run for all police vehicle collisions and not just when there were fatalities, that would provide a much better response to my request. I.e., generate a similar spreadsheet where the field 'Type of collision' includes all rows and not just those that have the value 'Collision on a road - police car involved'.

Running such a slightly modified query to that that was run to generate that attached document would obviously be within the time/cost limit of the act and hence the earlier exemption on such grounds should not apply.

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

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012090002663

I write in connection with your request for a review of the original MPS
decision relating to 2012060000846 which was received by the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS) on 21/09/2012.  

Your request for a review will now be considered in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response to
your request for a review of the original MPS case within a timescale of
20 working days.  In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve
this deadline.  If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Policy and Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request a formal internal review of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request dated 21 September 2012 concerning the 'Safe transport of detainees on arrest in London'.

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

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information Internal Review Reference No: 2012090002663

Please find attached the MPS response to your request for an Internal
Review.

Yours sincerely

Brian Wilson
FOIA Complaints Officer

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 Wilson,

Thank you for your belated response and your apologies. I appreciate the inclusion of the table you provide under section 16 of the act, however by limiting it to fatalities you appear to have misunderstood my request.

I would very much appreciate if you can provide me under section 16 of the act a similar table of the information recorded for all accident where an injury happened involving police vehicle where an officer from the MPS was involved. This would allow us to conclude this request.

I look forward to receiving your response within a reasonable time.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Mery

Freedom of Information Request Reference No:  2013020000346

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 01/02/2013.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

·I would very much appreciate if you can provide me under section 16 of
the act a similar table of the information recorded for all accident where
an injury happened involving police vehicle where an officer from the MPS
was involved. This would allow us to conclude this request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at  The Traffic Operational; Command Unit Headquarters,

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located information  relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

Please find attached information pursuant to your request above.

The search of the Police Collisions database was confined to:-

Category A (Collisions on a road or other Public Place)
Category B (Vicinity only Collisions)
Category D (Vicinity only Collisions whilst escorting)

Owing to the amount of data involved, each year required a separate
search.  The year was defined as the period 1st January to 31st December
(inclusive).

The numbers returned relate to the number of people involved NOT the
number of collisions - this is because of the incidence of multiple
injuries arising from a single collision record.

The level of injury shown needs to be treated with caution as this is
invariably based on the severity of injury that was known at the time that
the record was created.  Not only is this a subjective assessment by a
police officer, but injuries are often down graded or upgraded later,
either at hospital or in the days following the collision.

I have attached a separate spreadsheet for Fatals which is based on a
manual search of the relevant records held on the database and is a far
more reliable guide of the numbers involved.  This is only possible for
fatal collisions - it would be much too time-consuming and would exceed
the time limit/ cost limits set under the Freedom of Information Act,  to
replicate this methodology for all injury collisions.

<<Injury stats 2008 to 2012.xls>> <<Fatals - last updated 7 Jan 2013.xls>>

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Sue Reuter on telephone number 781184 quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

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

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

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

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

Complaint

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

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

FOI Complaint

Public Access Office

PO Box 57192

London

SW6 1SF

[email address]

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

The Information Commissioner

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

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at [1]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

Sue Reuter | CO15  | TDHQ  | HQ MIU Manager |CO15 Training SPOC
MetPhone 781184 | Telephone 020 7161 1184 | [mobile number] | Email
[email address]
Address 6^th Floor, Empress State Building, Lillie Road, Earls Court. SW6
1TR

Sue Reuter | CO15  | TDHQ  | HQ MIU Manager |CO15 Training SPOC
MetPhone 781184 | Telephone 020 7161 1184 | [mobile number] | Email
[email address]
Address 6^th Floor, Empress State Building, Lillie Road, Earls Court. SW6
1TR

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. file://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Dear Ms Reuter,

Many thanks for disclosing this information.

Can I please request one clarification of the 'fatals' tables which you explained 'is based on a manual search of the relevant records held on the database and is a far more reliable guide of the numbers involved.' ? As it is far more reliable I expected the two tabs of this spreadsheet to be consistent but I found one discrepancy in the data I was specifically seeking:

The pivot table (first tab) lists one 'passenger' as a fatality resulting from 'Collision on a Road - police car involved' in 'Apr 09 - Mar 10'

The All fatals record (second tab) lists three fatalities for the same period for the same type of collisions: one of a driver, one of a cyclist and one of a pedestrian.

Can you please explain this discrepancy and whether a passenger was a fatality from a collision on a road involving a police car during Apr 09 to Mar 10?

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Having another day off will be back on Tuesday 5th March......
Unless urgent Please do not contact me on my mobile...

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 Ms Reuter,

I hope you had a good day off early March. That you were back in the office on Tuesday 5th March is the only acknowledgement or response I received to my request for clarification of one discrepancy within the disclosed information.

Please either respond to my email dated March 1st or let me know when you will be able to.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Mery

Firstly, sincere apologies for the delay in providing a response to your
email regarding clarification on the data provided. In your earlier
communication you sought clarification on the following issues:

        The pivot table (first tab) lists one 'passenger' as a fatality
        resulting from 'Collision on a Road - police car involved' in 'Apr
        09 - Mar 10'

        The All fatals record (second tab) lists three fatalities for the
        same period for the same type of collisions: one of a driver, one
        of a cyclist and one of a pedestrian.

        Can you please explain this discrepancy and whether a passenger
was
        a fatality from a collision on a road involving a police car
during
        Apr 09 to Mar 10?

Having assessed the data concerned I do not believe that there is any
discrepancy between the 1st and 2nd tab.
The source data for the pivot table (1st tab) is the complete dataset in
the 2nd tab.
The pivot table indicates that there are 10 records relating to 2009/10.

Financial Year  Total  
Apr 04 - Mar 05 1      
Apr 05 - Mar 06 4      
Apr 06 - Mar 07 6      
Apr 07 - Mar 08 5      
Apr 08 - Mar 09 6      
Apr 09 - Mar 10 10     
Apr 10 - Mar 11 3      
Apr 11 - Mar 12 2      
Apr 12 - Mar 13 1      
Grand Total     38     

When the list is filtered to only include records where 'Type of
Collision' = 'Collision on a road - police car involved' there are 4
records

Financial Year  Total  
Apr 04 - Mar 05 1      
Apr 05 - Mar 06 2      
Apr 06 - Mar 07 1      
Apr 07 - Mar 08 2      
Apr 08 - Mar 09 1      
Apr 09 - Mar 10 4      
Grand Total     11     
Those four records as shown below (2nd Tab as below) these include the 3
incidents mentioned by the applicant and also a 4th incident in which the
fatality was a passenger.

Polcol No.      Date    Calendar Year   Financial Year  Type of Collision      
OCU where collision occurred    OCU of police driver    Driver class    Police
officer fatality Member of public fatality       Fatality Type 1
1219101001      11/04/2009      2009    Apr 09 - Mar 10 Collision on a road -
police car involved       KF      CO19    Level 1 Y       N      
Passenger      
1479125001      05/05/2009      2009    Apr 09 - Mar 10 Collision on a road -
police car involved       Kent    SCD11   Level 1 N       Y       Driver 
1599150001      30/05/2009      2009    Apr 09 - Mar 10 Collision on a road -
police car involved       KF      KF      Level 3 N       Y       Cyclist
11159172001     20/06/2009      2009    Apr 09 - Mar 10 Collision on a road -
police car involved       JC      JC      Level 3 N       Y      
Pedestrian     

I therefore believe that the data provided is indeed consistent and hope
that I have been able to illustrate that in this response.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Shankster
Senior Information Manager
Metropolitan Police Service

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,

Many thanks for your detailed explanations. It would indeed appear that I misread the spreadsheet. Sincere apologies for taking your time to explain further this point.

Yours faithfully,

David Mery

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Mery,

Thank you for getting back to me and I am pleased that the clarification provided was of use to you

Kind regards

Nigel Shankster

show quoted sections

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org