Sexual offences in the service justice system - personnel under age 18
Dear Ministry of Defence,
Table 3 of the annual publication on sexual offences in the service justice system shows in that 47 personnel under the age of 18 were victims of such offences in 2021, and 34 in 2022. Of these 81 individuals, can you please tell me:
1. How many in each year were a) girls and b) boys;
2. How many of the girls were in a) the army, b) the navy, and c) the air force; and
3. How many of the a) boys and b) girls were at the Army Foundation College at the time.
For ease of reference, the publication in question is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics...
Thank you in advance for your time,
David Gee
Dear Ministry of Defence,
Can you please tell me when you will be able to reply to this request?
Thank you
David Gee
Dear Ministry of Defence,
Can you please reply, even if only to tell me when you expect to provide the full response?
Thank you
David Gee
Good morning,
Thank you for your e mail. I can confirm that we are currently working on
a response but this is unfortunately taking longer than anticipated. We
should be in a position to send it out within the next 2 weeks.
Kind regards,
Defence People Secretariat
Ministry of Defence
Hello
Thank you for responding to say you aimed to send a response to this request in the following two weeks.
It's now been two weeks since your message - are you able to send the response? If not, can you let me know again when you expect to be able to do so?
Thank you
David Gee
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE - PERSONAL
Good morning,
I would like to apologise for the continuing delay, which is due to internal quality control procedures. The response will issued as soon as possible.
Thank you for continued patience.
Kind regards,
Defence People Secretariat
Ministry of Defence
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE - PERSONAL
Dear Mr Gee,
Please find enclosed a response from the Ministry of Defence to your FOIA
request. I apologise for the delay in ending this to you.
Regards,
Defence People Secretariat
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.
Of a group of 81 individuals identified as child victims of sexual offences in the armed forces in 2021 and 2022, I asked: a) how many were boys/girls, b) how many of the girls were in each branch of the armed forces, and c) how many personnel of each gender were at the Army Foundation College at the time.
Almost three months later, the MoD has refused to release any information for any part of my request, invoking Article 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act which protects personal data.
I have not asked for personal data. The answer to each part of my question is a number between 1 and 81. With the possible exception of very low numbers, discussed next, the release of this information could not lead to any person being identified in any circumstances.
Government guidance on statistical disclosure control
I accept that specifying a very low number, such as 1 or 2, could lead in certain limited circumstances to 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’.
If necessary, this safeguard could be applied in this case, which is indeed 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.....
Official guidance on releasing anonymised data is available at Government Statistical Service, ‘GSS/GSR Disclosure Control Guidance for Tables Produced from Administrative Sources’, 2014, https://analysisfunction.civilservice.go....
Information Commissioner guidance
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 in fact impossible, that the data I have asked for would lead to disclosure of individuals’ identities, at least in respect of any numbers that are not very low.
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, please refer to 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/....
Sexual Offences Amendment Act 1992
Finally, you have appealed to the Sexual Offences Amendment (SOA) Act 1992, on the grounds that information tied to a person’s place of work ‘ought not to be included in a publication if it is likely to have the result of leading members of the public to identify an individual’.
This is not relevant to the first two parts of my request, so cannot apply.
With respect to the third part of the request, in which I asked how many victims of each gender were at the Army Foundation College, the SOA Act still does not apply. This is because, again, the release of numerical data, after whatever necessary standard statistical disclosure control methods have been used, is not ‘likely to have the result of leading members of the public to identify an individual’.
Conclusion
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 of the three parts of my request?
- Is the risk of identification of individuals ‘reasonably likely’ to occur following release of unaltered information for any of the three parts 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 at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
With thanks in advance for your time,
David Gee
Hello
On 14 November, I asked for an internal review of the reply to this request. Can you please tell me when you expect to be able to let me know the outcome?
With thanks,
David Gee
Dear Mr Gee,
Your email has been passed to our Team, and I can confirm that we are currently undertaking an internal review in to the handling of your request. I apologise that your request for review has not been acknowledged to this date. The Department's target for completing internal reviews is 20 working days, however we should advise that the majority are currently taking between 20 and 40 working days to complete which in this case would be 16 January 2024. We therefore aim to respond to you on or before this date, but if we are unable to meet this deadline, we will contact you again.
The internal review will involve a full, independent reconsideration of the handling of the Request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act as well as the final decision.
Yours sincerely,
MOD Information Rights Compliance Team
Dear Mr Gee,
Please find attached a response to your request for internal review. A
copy of this response has also been issued to the Information
Commissioner.
Yours sincerely,
MOD Information Rights Compliance Team
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now