Updated Callsigns

The request was refused by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Can you provide the following Lists;

- Updated Vehicle Fleet List (Marked)
- Callsigns for areas including the Borough Merge.
- Callsigns for RTPC

Yours faithfully,

Nathan Dunkley

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr  Dunkley

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018030000228

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/03/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), Can you provide the following
Lists; - Updated Vehicle Fleet List (Marked) - Callsigns for areas
including the Borough Merge. - Callsigns for RTPC

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.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

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

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

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

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)

1 Attachment

Dear Mr  Dunkley

 

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/03/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

 

“Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), Can you provide the following
Lists; - Updated Vehicle Fleet List (Marked) - Callsigns for areas
including the Borough Merge. - Callsigns for RTPC”.

 

This request was assigned to me to process and the deadline is today. 
Unfortunately I am not able to issue you with a response today as I am
currently drafting my response to you.

 

I am sorry that this will be disappointing news for you.  We appreciate
that many of our requestors have their own deadlines to adhere to whether
that be an article to write, an essay to complete or research for a
publication, and we apologise for any inconvenience this delay has
caused.  We aim to respond to all requests as soon as possible and
therefore once I am in a position to move forward I will complete my
actions as quickly as I can. 

 

I will provide you with updates on your request every ten working days
therefore unless I am able to send my final response to you sooner I will
email you with an update on Tuesday 17^th April 2018.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Alyson Parker

Information Rights Unit

 

 

 

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

 

                               

Alyson Parker | Information Manager | Information & Insight | Strategy &
Governance | MetHQ |
Metropolitan Police Service

MetPhone 783500 | Telephone 020 7161 3500 |
[1][email address]
Address - Information Rights Unit, PO Box 57192, London SW6 1SF
Please consider the environment before printing this email

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 

Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within
and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to
consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of
Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will
consider information for release unless there is are valid and
proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive
information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such. Further
advice can be obtained from the Information Rights Unit - 0207 161 3500.

 

 

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: [2]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Dunkley

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018030000228

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/03/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),
Can you provide the following Lists;
-Updated Vehicle Fleet List (Marked)
- Callsigns for areas including the Borough Merge.
- Callsigns for RTPC".

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at MPS Fleet Services, One Met Model 2020, and the MPS Roads and Transport
Policing Command.  The searches located information relevant to your
request.

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to
your request, I thought that it would be helpful 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.

Section 1 of the Act places two duties on public authorities. Unless
exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny
whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty
at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as
being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of the Act
requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that
fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that
would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

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.  

DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I
am not required by statute to release the information requested. This
response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  Please see the legal annex for further
information on the exemptions applied in respect of your request.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 21(1) - Information already accessible by other means

Disclosure of the MPS vehicle fleet list is exempt by virtue of Section
21(1) as the MPS vehicle fleet list is already published on-line.  In
order to assist you I have provided the link below which takes you direct
to the current MPS Vehicle Fleet List.  This was last updated in March
2018:

https://www.met.police.uk/globalassets/f...

Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement

The exemption provided by Section 31 has been utilised because if we were
to provide call signs used by specific units within the MPS it would place
the MPS at a tactical disadvantage and reveal capability in a way which is
likely to be beneficial to criminals.  

Section 31 is a qualified exemption and as such I am required to carry out
a public interest balancing test before it can be relied upon.  

Please see the legal annex for further information on the exemptions
applied in respect of your request.

This concludes your request for information.  I would like to thank you
for your interest in the MPS.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me through the Information Rights Unit on 020 7161 3500, or via
email at [email address], quoting the reference number
above.

Your attention is drawn to the attached document which outlines your right
to complaint.

Yours sincerely

Alyson Parker
Information Manager

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 21(1) (Information accessible to applicant by other means of the
Act) provides:

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

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,

In order for the exemption provided under Section 31(1) to be engaged in
this case, the MPS must show that disclosure under the Act would, or would
be likely to, prejudice law enforcement functions, namely Section
31(1)(a)(b) the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension and
prosecution of offenders.  

In this case, this exemption has been applied as disclosure of Call Signs
would prejudice areas within law enforcement.

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.

Call signs are assigned to specific units, vehicles or officers.  Call
signs are used to contact these specific units, vehicles or officers so
that they can be directed to incidents.  As such, the use of call signs
will identify where those units, vehicles or officers are at the time they
are contacted and whether they are busy dealing with another incident.

If we were to release call signs and a member of public was also able to
gain access to a police radio they could use a call sign to infer
credibility and cause disruption over the network. Knowing specific call
signs for specific areas would enable individuals the opportunity to speak
on the network with a level of authenticity that could cause major
problems as they could try and disrupt local policing in order to
facilitate a crime.

Revealing the call signs of a specific unit, i.e. RTPC, would reveal
tactical capability and would benefit criminals, including terrorists or
terrorist organisations.  To make public details of call signs would be of
benefit to them as it could assist in avoiding detection and capture.  

In addition, the threat from terrorism cannot be ignored.  It is generally
recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly
complex and unpredictable.  The current UK threat level from international
terrorism, based on intelligence, is assessed as Severe, which means that
a terrorist attack is highly likely.

In order to counter criminal and terrorist behaviour it is vital that the
police have the ability to operate effectively, where necessary covertly,
to assist in the investigative process to ensure the successful arrest and
prosecution of offenders who commit or plan to commit crime or acts of
terrorism.  

The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which
policing is built and the police have a clear responsibility to prevent
crime, arrest those responsible for committing crime or those that plan to
commit crime.  

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

The release of this information would reveal a better understanding of the
tactical capabilities and effectiveness of the police when deploying their
units. There is a public interest in the community being made aware of all
the facts relating to policing, in order to ensure complete openness and
transparency and avoidance of speculation and rumour. Police call signs
are regularly placed into the public domain during documentary series and
this fact alone favours disclosure.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

To disclose information on call signs would reveal tactical capability and
would place the MPS at a tactical disadvantage. The MPS has a duty to
protect the public from harm and that duty of care to all involved must be
the overriding consideration.  It cannot be in the public interest to
disclose information which would undermine our ability to detect crime and
bring offenders to justice. Specific information relating to the tactical
identification of specific units would reveal resource information and
intelligence to the criminal fraternity. As detailed within the harm, this
would be a valuable asset to individuals and/or organisations wishing to
commit crime. The infiltration of police communication/intelligence
systems would disrupt the deployment of units and officers to any crime
which in turn would enable offenders to destroy evidence and evade
apprehension. In addition more crimes would be committed which would place
the safety of the general public at risk.

Balancing Test

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

Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing
resources and providing reassurance that the MPS is appropriately and
effectively ensuring that staffing levels and specific roles are covered,
there is also a strong public interest in knowing that policing activity
with regard to the delivery of law enforcement, is operationally
effective.

Public safety is of paramount importance and any information which would
undermine policing tactics and place individuals at risk, is not in the
public interest.  The effective delivery of operational law enforcement is
crucial and of paramount importance to the MPS.  Any disclosure in
relation to specific units or vehicles would have a negative impact on law
enforcement and public safety.

Whilst there is always a public interest in the transparency of how a
police force delivers effective law enforcement, e.g. how a budget is
spent, statistical information relating to offences committed, there is a
very strong public interest in safeguarding the intricacies and tactical
capabilities of how frontline policing is managed and deployed.
Information which identifies the focus of frontline policing activity,
such as this particular request, could be used by offenders, as outlined
within the harm, to their advantage.

Disclosure of information that would undermine the operational integrity
of effective law enforcement will undoubtedly adversely affect public
safety as more crimes would be committed. This would have a negative
impact on law enforcement.

Additionally the Police Service is charged with enforcing the law,
preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. In
order to achieve these objectives police forces provide call-signs to
individual patrol cars and policing units in order to ensure radio
communication and electronic communication is carried out as securely and
smoothly as possible. In addition call-signs are used in order to identify
those officers working within specific units, providing their exact
positions, as well as their availability for deployment.
 
In reality some information is undoubtedly aired within the public domain
via a window of opportunity, e.g. during the documentary series about
British traffic police entitled "Traffic Cops", see below link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006zygp

However, to disclose the requested information under FOI would be a
release to the world and would provide exact details of specific
call-signs together with the police group those call-signs are assigned
to. Such awareness would enable an individual to infiltrate the MPS
communications system thereby disrupting their ability to prevent and
detect crime as well as apprehend and prosecute offenders.

At present threats faced by the United Kingdom from criminal and terrorist
groups remain high. In order to counter criminal and terrorist behaviour
it is vital that the police and other agencies have the ability to work
together, where necessary covertly, in order to obtain intelligence within
current legislative frameworks to ensure the successful arrest and
prosecution of offenders who commit or plan to commit acts of terrorism,
whereby their modus operandi may involve "hacking" into communications
networks. Undoubtedly, this information would provide a distinct advantage
to terrorists who are intent on carrying out a terrorist attack.
 
The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which
policing is built and the police have a clear responsibility to prevent
crime, arrest those responsible for committing crime or those that plan to
commit crime. However there is also a duty of care to the public at large
and to disclose information which could assist a terrorist or terrorist
organisation has potential to undermine the operational integrity of
anti-terror operations and will adversely affect public safety.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that the delivery of law
enforcement is appropriate and balanced, this will only be overridden in
exceptional circumstances. It is our opinion therefore that for these
issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

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

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

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk