Dear Ministry of Defence,

Thank you for your reply to my earlier request (ref. FOI2024/12210) and your advice regarding how I might change the request to bring it under the cost limit.

In view of that advice, can you please tell me:

How many sexual offence cases handled by the Service Police in 2023 concerned victims aged under 18 serving in the army, and how many of these victims were female.

I hope this brings the request under the cost limit.

With thanks

David Gee

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Thank you for your response to my request. I am writing to ask for an internal review, on the following grounds.

I asked how many sexual offence cases handled by the Service Police in 2023 concerned victims aged under 18 serving in the army, and how many of these victims were female.

You replied to say that publishing the figure would risk identifying the individuals concerned.

In the absence of an explanation as to why publishing a figure, rounded to the nearest 5 or 10 as necessary, would reveal the identities of individuals, I disagree with your conclusion.

You invoked Article 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act which protects personal data, but I have not asked for personal data. The answer to each part of my question is a number.

I accept that specifying a very low number, such as 1 or 2, could lead in certain limited circumstances to the possibility of identity disclosure. As you know, the government’s own guidelines on statistical disclosure control state that low values pertaining to numbers of individuals should be hidden by rounding, rather than withheld, normally by presenting each such value as ‘fewer than five’. See https://analysisfunction.civilservice.go...

In support of your conclusion that this is not possible in this case, you have referred to the MoD's Disclosure Control and Rounding Policy. I have read this. It says that when publication of figures may plausibly risk the disclosure of individuals' identities (which in this case I dispute), those figures should be rounded. Nowhere does it say that the information should be withheld. Hence, the MoD's policy and the government-wide policy both appear to require you release the figures I have asked for, rounded if necessary, and not to withhold them.

Indeed, this has been the MoD's usual practice. See, for example, this ministerial answer to a similar question tabled by Emma Lewell-Buck MP in 2020: https://questions-statements.parliament....

Numbers higher than five present no such risk of identity disclosure and may be released as they are, which is also the MoD’s usual practice. See, for example, this ministerial answer to another similar question tabled by Emma Lewell-Buck MP in 2020: https://questions-statements.parliament....

Many more similar examples are available.

According to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guide on releasing anonymised data, there exists ‘clear legal authority for the view that where an organisation converts personal data into an anonymised form and discloses it, this will not amount to a disclosure of personal data’. This is exactly the case in respect of the present request.

In situations where identification of individuals may theoretically be derived from statistical information, the ICO guidance cites case law (R v Information Commissioner 2011) to make clear that, unless the risk of such disclosure is ‘reasonably likely’, anonymised data should not be considered ‘personal data’ within the meaning of the Act. In the present case, it is not ‘reasonably likely’, but I believe impossible, that the data I have asked for would lead to disclosure of individuals’ identities.

Recital 26 of the UK GDPR further explains: ‘…The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable…’

For details, see Information Commissioner’s Office, ‘Anonymisation: Managing data protection risk, code of practice’, 2012, chapter 2: ‘Anonymisation and personal data’, pp. 11–17, available at https://ico.org.uk/media/1061/anonymisat..., and UK GDPR, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/...

My request concerns a serious matter of clear public interest: the extent of the sexual abuse of children in military settings. I believe that the law requires the MoD to release this information and I hope you will reach the same conclusion.

I hope you will take these queries into account when conducting your internal review:

- Can Section 40(2) be applied lawfully to any part of my request?

- Is the risk of identification of individuals ‘reasonably likely’ to occur following release of unaltered information for any part of my request?

- If so, could standard conventions for statistical disclosure control safeguard against this risk, as per government and ICO guidance?

Can you please acknowledge receipt of this request for internal review and tell me whether you expect to respond within the statutory timeframe.

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

With thanks in advance for your time,

David Gee