2017070000569 I Write in Connection with Your Request
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Met HQ Strategy & Governance Information Rights Unit PO Box 57192 London SW6 1TR Telephone: 0207 161 3500 Facsimile: 0207 161 3503 Email: [email protected] www.met.police.uk Your ref: Our ref: 2017070000569 27 September 2017 Dear Mr Hastings Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017070000569 I write in connection with your requests for information that were received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 15/07/2017 and have been aggregated together. I note you seek access to the following information: REQUEST 1: I wish to the full report into ' Operation Russia;. An investigation into corruption within the metropolitan police. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/met-police-detectives-cleared-retrial REQUEST 2: I wish to the full report into 'Operation Tuleta'. Operation Tuleta an investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service into allegations of computer hacking, related to the News International phone hacking scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tuleta REQUEST 3: I wish to the full report into ' Operation Abelard Two'. An investigation into corruption within the metropolitan police and the murder of private investigator Daniel Morgan. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12716399 REQUEST 4: I wish to see the full and unredacted (albeit with some reactions made to protect sources and witnesses) Operation Tiberius report into police corruption. Page 1 of 16 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-scotland-yard-s-rotten- core-police-failed-to-address-endemic-corruption-9050224.html REQUEST 5: I wish to see a full copy of Operation Othona report. Operation Othona was a covert operation, gathering intelligence on corruption within the Metropolitan Police Service, set up in 1993. The work and findings of the operation were kept separate from other intelligence gathered by the Metropolitan Police. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Othona REQUEST 6: I wish to see a full copy of 'Operation Nightshade' report. Nightshade was an Anglo-American police sting across three continents. It had three lines of inquiry - a cocaine shipment from Venezuela to the UK, a money laundering scam and an illegal arms deal. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/mar/04/lauramilne DECISION The MPS is not required to comply with your request due to the following provisions of section 12(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000: Section 12(2) - Cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit Section 17(5) - Refusal notice REASON FOR DECISION Section 12 - Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit Under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, public authorities are not required to comply with a request for information if the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit has been specified in regulations and for agencies outside central Government; this is set at £450.00. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours [at a rate of £25 per hour] in determining whether the MPS holds the information, and then locating, retrieving and extracting the information. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Guidance titled ‘Requests where the cost of compliance with a request exceeds the appropriate limit’1 states: ‘9. Regulation 4(3) of the Fees Regulations states that a public authority can only take into account the costs it reasonably expects to incur in carrying out the following permitted activities in complying with the request: determining whether the information is held; locating the information, or a document containing it; retrieving the information, or a document containing it; and 1 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1199/costs_of_compliance_exceeds_appropriate_limit.pdf Page 2 of 16 extracting the information from a document containing it.’ The ICO guidance further states: ‘A public authority does not have to make a precise calculation of the costs of complying with a request; instead only an estimate is required. However, it must be a reasonable estimate’ ‘A public authority is not obliged to search up to the appropriate limit.’ Section 12(4) of the Freedom of Information Act and Regulation 5 of the Fees Regulations enables the cost of complying with multiple requests to be aggregated where two or more requests are received within the same 60 working day period and relate to any extent to the same, or similar, information. All of your queries broadly relate to anti-corruption investigations and related reports. Therefore, if the cost of complying with one request would exceed 18 hours, it follows that the cost of complying with all the questions posed would also exceed the cost limit. The Information Commissioner’s Office guidance in relation to the appropriate cost limit further states: ‘32. As a matter of good practice, public authorities should avoid providing the information found as a result of its searching and claiming section 12 for the remainder of the information. It is accepted that this is often done with the intention of being helpful but it ultimately denies the requestor the right to express a preference as to which part or parts of the request they may wish to receive which can be provided under the appropriate limit.’ The Upper Tier tribunal (GIA/3424/2014)2 has previously noted: ‘42. …The question of whether a request falls foul of the cost limit in section 12 is likely to be a function of two factors. The first is the breadth of the request itself, a matter over which the requestor has a considerable degree of control. By definition a carefully focussed FOIA request is less likely to be caught by the cost limit. The second factor concerns the record-keeping practices of the public authority, a matter over which the individual requestor obviously has no control. It may be more difficult to avoid the impact of the section 12 cap when making a request to a relatively decentralised public authority. However, the fact is that FOIA is about the citizen’s right to information, subject to certain safeguards, checks and balances. It is not a statute that prescribes any particular organisational structure or record-keeping practice in public authorities.’ [Emphasis added] The First-Tier Tribunal (EA/20111/0073 & 0074)3 stated: ‘s.17(5) expressly requires only notice of reliance on s.12 for the purpose of compliance with ss.1(1) and 10(1). The plain implication is that, where an 2 http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j4348/GIA%203424%202014-00.doc 3 http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i565/20110907%20%20Decision%20%20EA20110073%20&%200074.pdf Page 3 of 16 exemption is claimed under s.12 (or s.14), no further explanation is required in the authority`s notice of refusal.’ Under section 16(1) of the Act, public authorities have a general duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance to individuals making an FoIA request. Adhering to the code of practice under section 45 is taken as complying with section 16(1). Part II of the Code of Practice issued under section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act4 states: ‘Advice and assistance and fees 14. Where an authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information because, under section 12(1) and regulations made under section 12, the cost of complying would exceed the "appropriate limit" (i.e. cost threshold) the authority should consider providing an indication of what, if any, information could be provided within the cost ceiling. The authority should also consider advising the applicant that by reforming or re-focusing their request, information may be able to be supplied for a lower, or no, fee.’ All of your requests ask for a ‘report’ or ‘full report’ in relation to an investigation. However, it is not possible to easily identify or locate such information, especially in relation to Operations Russia, Abelard II and Nightshade. All ‘information held in recorded form’ by the MPS is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The MPS currently holds a large volume of information relating to these investigations. Much of this information is stored electronically and has been searched in order to identify information within the scope of your request. There is more than one ‘report’ per investigation and various terms may be used to describe a report (e.g. assessment, briefing, review, intelligence, reports for CPS advice etc.). Whilst some of these ‘reports’ can be identified electronically via the metadata associated with the document, the potential exists for further ‘reports’ to be held in hard copy format and/or within documents that are not easily identifiable from the associated metadata. This would require reading a large volume of documents in order to determine the extent of information held in relation to your request. This is further complicated by instances of overlapping investigations which may identify irrelevant reports that would need to be read in order to determine whether they were within the scope of your request. Hard copy information that may contain information relevant to your request is stored within a number of different locations. Approximately 5 hours have been expended to conduct initial searches with a view to obtaining an overview of information potentially relevant to your request. Due to the volume of documentation held by the MPS, in addition to the size of the MPS which may mean that information relevant to your request may be held within a number of locations, I estimate that the task of determining the extent of information held that is within the scope of your request would far exceed the appropriate cost limit. 4 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120215124400/http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/freedom-and-rights/foi- section45-code-of-practice.pdf Page 4 of 16 Advice and assistance I have considered what information, if any, could be provided within the cost limit for each of the operations named.