Dear Mr May-Bowles

Dear Mr. May-Bowles

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012010002733

I write in connection with your request for information dated 19/01/2012 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 19/01/2012. I note you seek access to the following information:

1.) Metropolitan police service policy on the investigation of crimes committed by police officers while on duty and

2.) Where this policy differs from the investigation of crimes committed by members of the public, the statutory justification, if any, for this difference

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 Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS)

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches locatedinformation relevant to your request.

DECISION

In respect of your request for:

1.) Metropolitan police service policy on the investigation of crimes committed by police officers while on duty and

2.) Where this policy differs from the investigation of crimes committed by members of the public, the statutory justification, if any, for this difference

Please note that the Freedom of Information Act provides individuals with the right to request recorded information from Public Authorities.There is no specific policy on the investigation of crimes committed by police officers while on duty. However in order to assist the following information may be of interest to you.

The Metropolitan Police Service takes any allegations of wrong doing by police officers very seriously. Under the provisions of the Police Code of Conduct officers are expected to adhere to the highest standards of behaviour whether on or off duty so that the general public and the police service itself can have complete confidence in the honesty and integrity of its police officers. Any police officer who is suspected of committing a criminal offence will be investigated and held accountable through the Criminal Justice System in the same way as any other person who is alleged to have committed a criminal offence. For your convenience I attach the relevant internet link below which will guide you to the Schedule Standards of Professional Behaviour which may be of further assistance to you.

Police Conduct Regulations 2008

new

Where appropriate, allegations of criminal behaviour or misconduct are investigated thoroughly by officers from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS). Investigations may also be managed or carried out independently by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The DPS carries out these investigations so that the public can have confidence in our commitment to ensuring the professionalism, honesty and integrity of all our officers and staff.

The Professional Standards Policy explains the MPS stance with regard to professional standards, integrity and investigation. For your convenience I attach the relevant internet link below.

Professional Standards Policy

The Primary Investigation of Crime and Secondary Investigation of Crime Standard Operating Procedures describe the generic minimum standards for the primary and secondary investigation of all crime in addition to further standards and processes relating to specific crime types. These SOP's should also be taken as the minimum standard expected of any investigative action by MPS personnel.

Personal information has been redacted from the Primary and Secondary Investigation of Crime SOP's, by virtue of Section 40(2) of the Act.

REASON 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

Section 40(2)(a)(b) - (3)(a)(i) Personal Information: Absolute Exemption/Class Based

Section 40(2)(a)(b) of the Act provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3)(a)(i) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3)(a)(i) states that information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles.

The eight principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) govern the way in which data controllers must manage personal information. Principle one of the DPA provides that personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. In view of this requirement, I have removed the names and telephone numbers within both documents. I have removed this information as this would allow members of staff to be identified and contacted. I consider that release of this information would be unfair and constitute unfair processing of personal data under principle one of the DPA. In reaching my decision, I have given due regard to Condition one and six of Schedule 2 of the DPA. Condition one of the DPA requires that consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that consideration is given to whether disclosure would constitute legitimate processing of that data. I have found that as no prior consent has been given to release this information and in the case of legitimate processing, the release of this personal data would be unexpected and subsequently unfair, that it is appropriate not to release this information. I also consider that the information redacted is not central to the records requested and does not detract from them.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is applied, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement/Qualified Exemption

Section 31 is a qualified and prejudice based exemption. I am therefore required to provide you with a prejudice test and Public Interest Test in regards to the application of this exemption.

Prejudice Test

Law enforcement tactics would be compromised with the full disclosure of the two Standard Operating Procedures. Redacted information within the SOP's detail policing methods and tactics used to investigate crime, which would provide an operational advantage to those who seek to commit criminal acts.

Redacted information within the SOP's details, for example, how to minimise contamination at crime scenes as well as procedures in regards to securing crime scenes. Disclosure would therefore risk compromising the MPS, as well as other forces techniques, in investigating crime.

Disclosure of the redacted information would also compromise forces' future law enforcement capabilities, as those who wish to commit offences may use the information to gain operational advantage over a current or future investigation. They may do so as disclosure would deepen an understanding of the methods police are likely to use to investigate crime and crime scenes. This information could be used by criminals to manipulate victims and situations if they know the procedure police will take on arrival to a crime scene.

The MPS handling of investigations require absolute care and professionalism. Disclosure of policing tactics and methodology in regards to often traumatic instances of crime, would detrimentally affect the trust the community has in the police, who expect us to investigate crime effectively and efficiently.

The outcome for the prejudice detailed above can only hinder the detection and prevention of crime. The MPS and other police forces already often rely on limited resources. Providing details on investigative technique may enable a criminal to evade detection and obtain an operational advantage over the MPS. This would lead to the MPS having to further stretch resources due to disclosure under the Act. It would not be in the public interest for the MPS to have to continually change procedure and protocol due to a FOIA disclosure of tactics and methodology.

Tactics and methodology within the SOP are still currently in use. However, in regards to tactics which may no longer be in use which are contained within the SOP, the MPS remains aware that it is not uncommon for outdated tactics to be brought back into use, sometimes many years later, as criminals modify their behaviour. Disclosure of redacted information could therefore be detrimental to our ongoing functions and capabilities if used against us.

Public Interest Test

Considerations favouring disclosure

Better awareness of MPS procedure in relation to the investigation of crime would provide the public with a better understanding of police action and procedure.

Full disclosure of the SOP's would enable the public to gain a deeper understanding of how police ensure investigations are carried out methodically and competently.

Considerations favouring non-disclosure

Law enforcement tactics would be compromised with the full disclosure of the Standard Operating Procedures.

Information redacted within the 'Investigation of Primary and Secondary Investigation of Crime' SOP's contains detailed investigative techniques and methodology. MPS handling of such cases requires absolute care and professionalism. To disclose policing methods and tactics under the Freedom of Information could provide an operational advantage to those who seek to commit criminal acts. Redacted information within this SOP's details, for example, how to minimise contamination at crime scenes as well as procedures in regards to evidence gathering. It would in no way be in the public interest to disclose such details into the public domain. This would risk compromising the work of the MPS, as well as other forces techniques in investigating serious offences.

Redacted information within these SOP's detail, for example procedures in regards to identifying suspects and conducting searches for offenders. It would in no way be in the public interest to disclose such details into the public domain. Disclosure of these details would risk compromising the MPS, as well as other forces techniques, in investigating crime.

Disclosure of the redacted information would also compromise the future law enforcement capabilities of the police, as those who wish to commit offences could use the disclosure to gain operational advantage over a current or future investigation. They would be able to do so, as disclosure would enable them to understand the methods police are likely to use to investigate crime. This information could be used by criminals to manipulate victims and a situation if they know the procedure police will take on arrival to a crime scene.

The outcome for the prejudice detailed above can only hinder the detection and prevention of crime. The MPS and other police forces already work with often limited resources. Providing details on investigative technique may enable a criminal to evade detection and obtain an operational advantage over MPS capabilities and resources. This may lead to the MPS having to further stretch resources due to disclosure under the Act. It would not be in the public interest for the MPS to have to continually change procedure and protocol, due to a FOIA disclosure of tactics and methodology in crime investigation.

Factors favouring disclosure in this case are likely to be weaker while our tactics and methodology is still currently in use. In regards to tactics which may no longer be in use contained within the SOP, the MPS remains aware that it is not uncommon for outdated tactics to be brought back into use, sometimes many years later, as criminals modify their behaviour.

Balance Test

The strongest consideration favouring disclosure is providing the public with a greater awareness of how the police conduct their investigations into crime. The strongest consideration favouring non-disclosure is the operational risk disclosure of tactics and methodology would have on the capabilities and efficient functioning of the police, to conduct their role without fear of sabotage by criminals aware of policing processes.

On weighing up the competing interests I find the public interest favours non-disclosure of the SOP's in full. My decision is based on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public, but is what would be of greater good, if disclosed, to the community as a whole.

There is additional Information published on the MPS Publication Scheme which may be of interest to you. Please see the relevant internet link below.

Investigation of Crime Policy

I can confirm that the MPS does have a specific policy regarding police employees who commit domestic violence, rape or serious sexual offences which may be of interest to you and it is important to note that the MPS treats all allegations of sexual assault/rape seriously and will investigate the circumstances of each alleged incident fully and in the same manner, irrespective of whether the allegation is made against a member of the public or an MPS employee. Whilst there is no difference in the investigative process when investigating any allegation of a criminal offence against any person, the MPS recognises that where an allegation is made about a member of its staff, it has a responsibility to implement internal risk management mechanisms to protect victims, meet the welfare needs of its staff and safeguard public confidence in the MPS. Please see below the attached document 'MPS Personnel Committing Domestic Violence, Rape or Other Serious Sexual Offences' which may be of additional assistance to you.

Please note that this document has been redacted, that is, I have removed information that would, if released, be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). I have also removed information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the ability of the Police Service to both prevent and detect crime. In accordance with Section 17 of the Act, this letter serves as a Refusal Notice for this information.

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(a) states the fact,

(b) specifies the exemption in question, and

Under the Act, there are two types of exemption 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, if prejudice/harm is not certain, to determine the likelihood of it occurring.

In accordance with Section 17 of the Act, I have applied the exemptions set out by Section 40(2)(a)(b) - (3)(a)(i) and Section 31(1)(a) of this Act.

Section 40(2)(a)(b) - (3)(a)(i) Personal Information: Absolute Exemption/Class Based

The eight principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) govern the way in which data controllers must manage personal information. Principle one of the DPA provides that personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. Having considering your request, I have redacted the names and contact details of members of staff present within the requested documents. I have removed this information as there would be no expectation on behalf of members of staff, that their names and/or contact details would be released to the general public. Release would accordingly constitute unfair processing of personal data under principle one of the DPA.

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement/Qualified Exemption

Section 31(1)(a) of the Act provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. I have applied this exemption of the Act in redacting any information concerning the management and/or processing of MPS intelligence that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the ability of the MPS to prevent crime.

The MPS procedures for managing intelligence have been developed following considerable research which, if accessed by a potential offender or an individual that has committed a crime, would provide them with knowledge of how such information is processed by the Police Service. There are considerable risks in making available to any offender/potential offender, details of any police procedure under the Act. This is particularly the case when the procedure is central to the manner in which the Police Service manages and/or processes its intelligence.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 31(1)(a) of the Act is both qualified and prejudice based. I am accordingly required to conduct a public interest test to determine whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information. I must also establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that may result from disclosure and where prejudice/harm is established but not certain, determine the likelihood of it occurring.