Marie Koenigsberger

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please supply the Scotland Yard Internal report into the use of CCTV that was the basis of media reports on 24/8/09. Sky News say that this was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act but it does not appear to have been published on the Metropolitan Police website.

The footage of the report in the media showed that it had a section heading of "Latest Report on VIIDO" and states "Op Javelin estimates that there are around one million cameras in London. Despite this, in 2008 less than 1000 crimes were solved using CCTV."

Yours faithfully,

Marie Koenigsberger

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Koenigsberger

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009080005024
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/08/2009. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Please supply the Scotland Yard Internal report into the use of CCTV
that was the basis of media reports on 24/8/09.
* Sky News say that this was obtained under the Freedom of Information
Act but it does not appear to have been published on the Metropolitan
Police website. The footage of the report in the media showed that it
had a section heading of "Latest Report on VIIDO" and states "Op
Javelin estimates that there are around one million cameras in London.
Despite this, in 2008 less than 1000 crimes were solved using CCTV."

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 Shannon Aldridge on telephone number 020 7161 3527
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Shannon Aldridge
Quality and Assurance Advisor
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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 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

show quoted sections

David Durant left an annotation ()

Marie,

If you are successful with this can you please let me know so the document can be distributed via the Open Rights Group network.

Many thanks.

David Durant
dave@bowsy.co.uk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

3 Attachments

Dear Ms Koenigsberger

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009080005024

I write in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/08/2009. I note
you seek access to the following information:

* Please supply the Scotland Yard Internal report into the use of CCTV
that was the basis of media reports on 24/8/09. Sky News say that this
was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act but it does not
appear to have been published on the Metropolitan Police website. The
footage of the report in the media showed that it had a section
heading of "Latest Report on VIIDO" and states "Op Javelin estimates
that there are around one million cameras in London. Despite this, in
2008 less than 1000 crimes were solved using CCTV."

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 at the Territorial Policing Headquarters - Operation
Javelin.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located 3 reports relevant to your request.

DECISION

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

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of
access to information held by public authorities. A public authority
in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if that public
authority holds the requested information and, if so, then communicate
that information to the applicant.

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.

I have considered your request for information within the provisions
set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

In relation to my first duty under the Act, which is to confirm if the
requested information is held by the MPS, I can confirm that I have
located information relating to your request.

In relation to my second duty under the Act, which is to provide the
requested information to you, I have carefully considered your request
and decided to release the information you have requested in a
redacted format.

I have today decided to:
disclose all reports subject to the deletion of information pursuant
to the provisions of sections 40(2)(a)(b), 30 (1)(a)(b)(c) and 31
(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 17 of the Act provides:

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

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

Section 40(2)(a)(b) 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 [1998 c.
29.] 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, or
(ii) section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to
cause damage or distress), and
(b) in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a
member of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene
any of the data protection principles if the exemptions in section
33A(1) of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to
manual data held by public authorities) were disregarded.

One of the main differences between the Data Protection Act (1998) and
the Freedom of Information Act (2000) is that any information released
under FOI is released into the public domain, not just to the
individual requesting the information. As such, any release that
identifies an individual through releasing their personal data, even
third party personal data, is exempt if to release it would breach any
of the data protection principles or Section 10 of the DPA.

Personal data is defined under the Data Protection Act (1998) as data
that is biographical in nature, has the applicant as its focus and/or
affects the data subject's privacy in his or her personal,
professional or business life.

All members of the public have an intrinsic right to privacy and these
rights are protected by virtue of the Human Rights Act and the Data
Protection Act. Release of information as requested here is likely to
compromise those rights.

To provide the names redacted in this report would be likely to breach
principle one of the Data Protection Act, the processing of data
fairly and lawfully.

Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it
has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct
with a view to it being ascertained-
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,
(b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the
circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute
criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct, or
(c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.

This exemption is both qualified and class based. Therefore I am
required to provide you with a public interest test.

Public Interest Test for Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Accountability

To provide crime reference numbers and details of investigations which
have utilized the use of CCTV successfully would show the MPS were
accountable for their use of technology. It would also provide
evidence that the MPS are using the resources available to them
efficiently and effectively.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Human Rights, Morals and Ethics

Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998 offers protection for a
person's private and family life, home and correspondence from
arbitrary interference from the State. As a public authority, we have
an obligation to ensure the release of information does not breach the
European Convention on Human Rights. To provide the information
redacted under Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) would be likely to breach such
rights. All victims of crime dealing with the police expect to have
their privacy retained, especially in relation to certain types of
crime. To release this information would be likely to identify the
individuals involved, and thus cannot be seen to be in the public
interest.

Interests of Third Parties and Investigations

For reasons similar to those outlined above, to release the
information redacted under Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) would be likely to
jeopardise the interests of third parties. The redacted information
includes details about crimes committed that were solved using CCTV
technology. Such information would be likely to lead to
identification of the individuals involved in the investigation at all
stages, and also specific incidents detailing the investigation
itself.

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 disclosing information
relating to specific details of criminal investigations using CCTV
cameras. The sensitivities around the investigations, and the impact
upon those involved, means that the balance of the public interest
test falls firmly in favour of non-disclosure at this time. This is
particularly the case due to the recent nature of such incidents.

Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) 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,
(c) the administration of justice.

This exemption is both qualified and prejudice based. Therefore I am
required to provide you with both a harm and public interest test.

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I
have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

The text redacted under Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) contains information
which, if released, would be likely to prejudice the ability of the
MPS to prevent or detect crime, to apprehend or prosecute offenders,
or administer justice. To provide information about the location of
certain technologies, or its strengths and weaknesses, would be likely
to furnish individuals or groups having the necessary intent to
disrupt policing activity with the information to effectively do just
that, thereby hindering current and future operational activity.

This would consequently increase the capability for criminals,
including extremist networks, to target innocent members of the
public. Any release of information that would be likely to prejudice a
police services' ability to prevent and/or detect crime could only be
viewed as being harmful to members of the public.

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

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Accountability

To release all of the requested information would ensure the MPS could
be held to account over their use of CCTV, a subject which is very
emotive for the public. To provide all of the information in DCI
Neville's reports would ensure the public were aware of the technology
we use to police. It would show the public the initiatives that the
MPS use to combat and reduce crime, thus ensuring public safety and
confidence. The release of the requested information would
demonstrate to the public the measures taken by police to utilize
resources where and when they are believed by the public to be most
needed.

The general public expects the highest standard of professionalism and
integrity in the delivery of policing services by the MPS. The release
of the requested information would demonstrate an open relationship
between the MPS and the public in policing matters.

Use of Resources

The aim of the Freedom of Information Act is to make government bodies
more open and transparent. One way of doing so is by providing the
public with details of how we spend public funds and use our
resources.
By releasing the information requested, the Service would show that
the MPS utilise their resources, in this instance CCTV, efficiently.
This would assist public debate.

Public Awareness and Debate

To provide all of the information in an un-redacted format would lead
to an increase in public debate over the use of one of the MPS's most
contested resources. To provide such information would show the
public where the systems used are effective, or where there are
weaknesses, thus ensuring they are informed as to the reasoning behind
MPS decision making.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Efficient and Effective Conduct of the Service

To release all of the requested information in DCI Neville's report
about the use of CCTV would prevent the Service from preventing or
detecting crime, as well as hinder our ability to apprehend offenders.

Information about possible strengths and weaknesses in surveillance
technology, as well as locations of cameras, would be an extremely
valuable commodity to individuals (and/or organisations) wishing to
commit crime, as it provides an insight into tactics and resources
available to the MPS. Therefore, those seeking to commit criminality
could counter any future policing tactics and elude justice. This will
ultimately have a detrimental impact on innocent members of the public
living or travelling within the MPS district.

The publication of specific details relating to perceived strengths
and weaknesses in MPS tactics and intelligence could lead to those
with criminal intentions taking 'informed' steps to counter policing,
thereby potentially reducing police effectiveness.

Public Safety

Releasing all of the requested information in DCI Neville's reports
could leave London vulnerable to criminals utilising the information
for malicious intent, including potential terrorist threats. This
could lead to an increase in crime if offenders believed they were
less likely to be caught on CCTV and apprehended in certain areas, for
example. This is particularly the case if they obtained the
information for various London boroughs, enabling them to 'map' the
strength of CCTV surveillance over the capital.

As crime prevention/detection is in the 'public's interest', any
release of information which would be likely to prejudice our ability
to prevent and/or detect crime could only be viewed as being harmful
to the public interest.

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of all of the requested information would not be in the
public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from
the information being disclosed does not outweigh disclosing
information relating to which boroughs new technology is being piloted
in, the capability of various intelligence systems or areas of
perceived weakness in relation to CCTV.

It is pertinent to note that the public interest is not what interests
the public but what will be of greater good, if released, to the
community as a whole. My final decision to refuse access to some of
the information you have requested is based on what is in the public
interest and not what is of interest to the public.

For your information, the operation Javelin incorporates two strands,
the VIIDO retrieval and production stage and the Met Cu circulation
stage. The MPS have made significant progress in the CCTV systems and
process field and now have 11 dedicated VIIDO units across the MPS
with a further 5 being considered for role out. The MetCu, to date
have received over 5262 images this year with a potential
identification made in over 1000 submissions compared to 3390
submitted images last year. Evaluation continues with different
models including the use of Metropolitan Special Constabulary / Police
Community Support Officer and Specialist Crime Directorate staff.

Operation Javelin remains a pilot testing, hypothesis, systems and
process. Its position within the policing of London remains constantly
under review. It should be noted that a potential identification needs
scrutiny and evidential assessment before an individual is arrested
and charged. The MPS together with the CPS must be confident that the
identification is evidentially compliant.

With regard to DCI Neville's comments about the Olympics, please note
that the **600m budget for additional policing and wider security for
the Games that DCI Neville refers to was announced by Government in
March 2007. This amount covers the activity that all UK police and
other safety and security agencies will have to deliver for the Games,
over and above their routine business.

Please note, these reports were intended for internal discussion and
as a result contain unqualified statements, statistics and personal
opinion. Opinions expressed in these documents are those of the
individual, Detective Chief Inspector Neville, and such comments are
based on interpretation of various data sets and study material. These
should not be taken to be a reflection of the opinions held by the
Metropolitan Police Service or to be factually accurate.

Please find attached your copies of all three redacted reports.

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
to Dheyan Khan quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Detective Chief Superintendent Worker
Territorial Policing Headquarters.

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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 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

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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 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

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