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 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.

Operation Othona

The transcript of the Police and Crime Committee meeting dated 27/03/20145 in part records MPS Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey as stating the following:

‘Othona is referred to as an operation. It was an intelligence gathering process…

…Othona is the sort of catch-all that was given to this hoovering up of intelligence and information that was out there. There were then a number of operations that come off from it, in terms of proactive operations and where it goes…

…One of the issues has always been - and we have been very clear in terms of this - finding a way that we could evidence the Operation Othona intelligence, because I think people assume, when we talk about Operation Othona, there must be a four-page document that says, “This is what it is”. It is not like that at all. The Operation Othona file really relates to the admin, how it is managed, Othona is lots and lots of intelligence.’

This demonstrates that there is not an Operation Othona report. The outcome of Operation Othona was that the intelligence collated led directly to the formation of an overt operational unit, CIB3, in January 1998 that could act on the intelligence gained.

Operation Tiberius

The transcript of the Police and Crime Committee meeting dated 04/09/20146 in part records the then MPS Assistant Commissioner as stating the following:

‘…Tiberius was not an investigation of its own. It was a strategic review of all our issues at that time in relation to corruption, which outlined a huge number of different bits of intelligence, previous investigations, possible investigations, and so it was an all-encompassing –I am understating it here – scoping report. Some of the officers named in Tiberius most certainly have been convicted.’

A letter dated 05/12/2014 from Cressida Dick7 further stated:

‘Professionalism – A Summary of prosecutions under Operation Tiberius

The operation Tiberius report mentions a number of officers who are, to varying degrees, believed to have involved in corrupt relationships with individuals engaged in criminality. This ranges from officers where significant intelligence about corruption had been developed over time to colleagues of these officers

5 https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s36277/Police%2520and%2520Crime%2520Committee%2520Minutes%2520- Transcript-%2520Appendix%25201.rtf 6 https://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/documents/s39661/Minutes%20-%20Appendix%201%20-%20Transcript%20of%20QA%20- %204%20September.pdf 7 https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s42249/Appendix%202%20- %2020141215%20Letter%20from%20AC%20Cressida%20Dick_PCC%204th%20September.pdf

Page 5 of 16 who are linked purely through association, without a substantive intelligence case against them. To quantify numbers concerned may compromise the safety of individuals and as a result the MPS will not provide this information.’

Regarding Operation Tiberius, a redacted report and associated disclosure rationale can be found via the following links: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/operation_tiberius#incoming-533575 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/192412/response/533575/attach/3/Op%20Ti berius%20Report.pdf

Operation Nightshade

Operation Nightshade was an investigation into the activities of criminals involved with importation of drugs, the supply of firearms and money laundering undertaken by the now disbanded South East Regional Crime Squad (SERCS). It was completed in June 1994.

In response to an earlier request for ‘a Copy of the Met report Operation Nightshade’, searches of MPS archived registered files were conducted. Those searches failed to identify any references to Operation Nightshade within the metadata relating to archived files. However, following open searches of information in the public domain, additional searches were conducted in relation to Operation Cornwall, a major anti-corruption operation that ran from 1997-1999. In excess of 200 boxes of information are held in relation to Operation Cornwall. Approximately 3-4 hours were required to view a single file retrieved in relation to Operation Cornwall with the aim of identifying information relevant to the request. The file contained references to Operation Nightshade and it may indeed be the case that further information relating to Operation Nightshade may be held within the related boxes identified. However, in order to determine whether the requested information is indeed held it would be necessary, at a minimum, to view in excess of 200 boxes of information in the attempt to locate and identify information pertinent to the request and/or any indexes, reference numbers or other details that would facilitate the identification of pertinent information.

In addition to the above, further searches were conducted on the Large Major Enquiries System (HOLMES) in an attempt to locate and retrieve pertinent information within the appropriate cost limit. The results of these searches suggest that hard copy information would need to be obtained in order to determine the extent of information within the scope of your request held by the MPS. Furthermore, the nature of any searches may be open ended as it would not be possible to be certain that all of the information within the scope of your request had been identified. This is due to the potential for the existence of more than one document that could reasonably be described as an ‘Operation Nightshade report’. 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.

In response to your FoIA request, further searches were carried out within the IRSC that identified numerous documents held electronically that refer to Operation Nightshade consisting of 10,000+ pages. The metadata associated with these searches did not indicate the presence of a specific report in relation to Operation Nightshade. Consequently, at least 3 different locations have been identified as relevant to your

Page 6 of 16 request. There are numerous ‘reports’ held by the MPS that may relate to Operation Nightshade. However, I estimate that complying with this aspect of your request alone would exceed the appropriate cost limit due to the volume of information that would need to be read, at a minimum, in order to identify information within the scope of your request.

You may be interested in the judgement in a High Court Case (Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 1756 (QB))8 and subsequent appeal (Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWCA 972 (QB))9 regarding a libel claim that in part relates to Operation Nightshade.

Operation Tuleta

Operation Tuleta refers to a unit investigating allegations that private investigators hacked into computers for private information on behalf of journalists. Specific allegations investigated by the Tuleta team were given their own operation name.

There is no overarching ‘Tuleta report’.

Operation Russia

Operation Russia was an anti-corruption investigation into a cell of corrupt officers within the Regional Crime Squad (RCS) office at East Dulwich.

There are numerous ‘reports’ held in relation to Operation Russia. I estimate that complying with this aspect of your request alone would exceed the appropriate cost limit.

On 26/07/2006, a BBC Panorama programme entitled “The Boys Who Killed Stephen Lawrence” aired allegations suggesting that corruption had played a part in the murder investigation. In July 2006 the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) announced that it had asked the Metropolitan Police to look into alleged claims of police corruption that may have helped hide the killers of Lawrence. The IPCC subsequently published an investigation report titled ‘Independent investigation into complaints following ‘The Boys Who Killed Stephen Lawrence’’10 in 2007.

Following further media reporting in March 2012 alleging police corruption, the IPCC reviewed their 2006 investigation to compare the allegations investigated in 2006 with more recent allegations featured in the media. In May 2012, the IPCC published a report following their investigation into complaints following “The Boys who Killed Stephen Lawrence”11.

These reports in part relate to Operation Russia.

In 2012, the established an Independent Review into possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case, undertaken by QC. Mark Ellison QC’s report, published in March 2014,

8 http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/1756.html 9 http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/972.html 10 https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/stephen_lawrence_final_report_1.pdf 11 https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/ReviewStephenLawrence.pdf

Page 7 of 16 also describes Operation Russia at volume I, page 11812 and within various appendices contained within volume II13.

On 16/10/2015, the National Crime Agency (NCA) confirmed its investigation into alleged police corruption during the original investigation in to the murder of Stephen Lawrence14.

Further information relating to Operation Russia is available via the document linked below:

Briefing to the Police and Crime Committee On behalf of the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, Allegation of Police Corruption into the Stephen Lawrence Case, 5 October 2012 https://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/documents/s18619/Appendix%2520A1%2520to%252 0summary%2520list%2520of%2520actions.rtf

Operation Abelard II

Operation Abelard II was the name given to the re-investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan that commenced in March 2006.

There are numerous ‘reports’ held in relation to Operation Abelard II. I estimate that complying with this aspect of your request alone would exceed the appropriate cost limit.

The judgement in a High Court Case (Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 273 (QB))15 relating to a claim for damages against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner provides an overview of the investigations relating to the murder of Daniel Morgan.

The transcript of the Police and Crime committee dated 27/03/201416 in part records MPS Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey as stating the following:

‘…There is also a question of size and scope. In our storage at the moment, we store long-term off-site, if we just put DPS in as a search, there are 3,003 crates. Quite rightly, Mr Ellison talks about the Morgan investigation. The Morgan investigation has a million pieces of paper. Anyone is a better person than I am if they can say what is in every one of them. There are a million pieces of paper in that investigation. Therefore this ability to provide very quick answers, it is something I think we collectively have to learn. You cannot provide quick answers on these things. If they have run for any length of time, the complexity there is colossal, and the amount of information, even with things that were put on the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES) and everything else, you will not have every document on there...’

The May 2012 ‘Review into Operation Abelard II by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Service’17 outlined the circumstances relating to a failed

12 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/293108/SLIndepReviewVol1.pdf 13 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/293113/SLindepReviewVol2.pdf 14 http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/727-investigation-into-alleged-police-corruption-during-original-stephen-lawrence- murder-investigation 15 http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/273.html 16 https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s36277/Police%2520and%2520Crime%2520Committee%2520Minutes%2520- Transcript-%2520Appendix%25201.rtf 17 http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/agencies/operation_abelard_ii_report_may_2012.pdf

Page 8 of 16 prosecution relating to Daniel Morgan, a private investigator, who was murdered on the 10th March 1987. He had been struck several times with an axe whilst in the car park of the Golden Lion public house, Sydenham Road, Lewisham. In March 2011, three men were acquitted of charges relating to the murder of Daniel Morgan following a decision by the Crown to offer no evidence against them. The main reason for the withdrawal of the prosecution was the Crown’s inability to fully satisfy their disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CIPA), as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A joint MPS and CPS statement dated 21/05/201218 stated:

‘The issues around the disclosure exercise were such that we could not guarantee that all relevant material had been identified, considered and disclosed so as to ensure a fair trial…To this end, the purpose of the review was to identify potential good practice and learning for both police and prosecutors for future cases…Those recommendations identified within the review will now be implemented by both agencies.’

One of the recommendations identified within the review is stated as follows:

‘Archiving Police documents

Good Practice Point 11 Ensure systems are in place to permit the identification and retrieval of all relevant material from historical operations. (e.g. informant files, microfiche, GR, DPS files, CPS case files).

A significant challenge in such historical cases is in ensuring that all relevant material has been found and reviewed. This task is made more complex by the use of different operational names when archiving, particularly when there are inter-linked investigations...’

The Home Secretary’s written statement published on 10/05/201319, in which the creation of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel was announced, outlined the background to the murder case as follows:

‘Daniel Morgan, a private investigator, was found murdered in a pub car park in south east London on 10 March 1987. It is one of the country’s most notorious unsolved murder cases. After numerous separate police investigations into the case between 1987 and 2002, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the final attempted prosecution against five suspects in 2011. [Emphasis added]

The Panel’s purpose and remit is to shine a light on the circumstances of Daniel Morgan’s murder, its background and the handling of the case over the whole period since March 1987, including addressing questions as to the role played by police corruption in protecting those responsible for the murder from being brought to justice and the failure to confront that corruption. The independent panel may identify and recommend further lines of inquiry.

Your Freedom of Information Act request was received on 15/07/2017.

18 http://content.met.police.uk/News/Joint-statement-from-MPS-and-CPS-regarding-Operation-Abelard- II/1400008677280/1257246741786 19 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/daniel-morgan

Page 9 of 16 The MPS do not permanently close unsolved murder cases and they remain under review. Approximately 6 years prior to your request, an attempt was made to prosecute 5 individuals in relation to the murder and the creation of an independent panel was announced approximately 4 years prior to your request and is still ongoing at the time of writing. The Daniel Morgan Independent Panel may identify and recommend further lines of inquiry.

This suggests that any information relevant to your request would relate to recent investigations in the context of the definition of an ‘historical record’ within section 62 of the Freedom of Information Act 200020.

The Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Review’s protocol on disclosure of information21 sets out the arrangements for disclosure to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel and demonstrates that:  The MPS have a continuing obligation to ensure that the existence of any new documents (i.e. those documents newly created and/or newly discovered and those newly acquired) which might fall within the Terms of Reference is identified and drawn to the attention of the Independent Panel so it may decide whether to request these.  The Panel will conduct a rigorous, evidence-based analysis of the information it obtains  An estimated 1.5 million pages of documentation are being considered by the Independent Panel  The Independent Panel may wish to evidence their final report by referencing and publishing the source documentation on which it is based  Any redactions will be justified by reference to the appropriate section(s) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000  The Independent Panel will adopt a ‘family first’ approach in relation to the release of its findings and report  The Independent Panel will ensure that its final report is in compliance with all its legal obligations.  Although the date for publication has yet to be determined, the Independent Panel have outlined the timescales within which it is anticipated that it will complete its reports and indicated that this will be kept under review.

In July 2012, then Home Secretary asked Mark Ellison QC to review the investigations relating to the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The terms of reference for the review included matters relating to police corruption. The report22, published in March 2014, stated:

20 Section 62 and 63(1) of the Freedom of Information Act states: 62(1) For the purposes of this Part, a record becomes a “historical record” at the end of the period of thirty years beginning with the year following that in which it was created. 62(2) Where records created at different dates are for administrative purposes kept together in one file or other assembly, all the records in that file or other assembly are to be treated for the purposes of this Part as having been created when the latest of those records was created. 62(3) In this Part “year” means a calendar year. 63(1) Information contained in a historical record cannot be exempt information by virtue of section 28, 30(1), 32, 33, 35, or 42’ Section 63(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 prohibits section 31, relating to law enforcement, from being applied to records created more than 100 years ago. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/part/VI Schedule 7(4) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 amends section 62 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 so that the definition of an historical record has been reduced to 20 years subject to transitional provisions. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/25/schedule/7 In accordance with the aforementioned transitional provisions, in the year 2017 records created 25 years ago are considered to be an “historical record” 21 https://www.danielmorganpanel.independent.gov.uk/procedures/information-disclosure-protocol/ 22 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287031/stephen_lawrence_review_volume_1.pdf

Page 10 of 16

‘5.11.6 Have we been able to uncover all material evidence relating to the issue of corruption and, if not, would a Public Inquiry have a greater chance of doing so?

 It is clear that there are significant areas where relevant MPS records should exist but cannot be found…  There may well be some potential for a statutory Public Inquiry to discover more evidence than we have discovered, given the powers of such an Inquiry to order the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses and to examine witnesses and allow them to be cross- examined by interested parties.  That potential may, however, be limited, given the somewhat chaotic state that historical MPS records appear to be in. This includes incomplete records of file movement, many different file logging systems and the natural depletion of records that will have occurred as a result of age- based destruction, or destruction to protect the identity of informants.’

Against this background, a review of historic anti-corruption operations and intelligence is currently being conducted by the MPS Inquiry and Review Support Command (IRSC), formerly known as the Public Inquiry Team. This review involves scanning, categorising, indexing and reviewing obsolete IT systems and approximately 3,000 crates containing hard copies of archived material, including material relating to the various operations named in your requests. The IRSC is also supporting the work of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel23 and the Undercover Policing Inquiry24 into undercover policing.

In addition, the IRSC is engaged in supporting MPS Records Management Branch with a project (Operation Filesafe) to conduct a sweep of the MPS estate to identify incorrectly archived files, enhance information management processes and locate material relevant to the work of the work of the IRSC including information relating to historic anti-corruption investigations.

This demonstrates the potential for the public interest relating to the disclosure of matters relating to historic anti-corruption investigations to be served via other means such as the independent scrutiny of related matters.

Due to the significant public interest served by the ongoing work to digitise anti- corruption files, support public inquiries and historic investigations and the volume of potentially relevant information that would need to be assessed, complying with your request may also impose a disproportionate burden upon the MPS. In addition to the time that would be required to process your request, there would also be an opportunity cost as resources would have to be diverted from related enquiries.

It is also pertinent to note that a disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act is not a private transaction and in effect constitutes disclosure to the world at large. Therefore, when considering an FoIA request, it is necessary to consider the harm in disclosure to any individual, including those who may be the focus of investigations and those who may be in a position to assist police investigations. Such disclosure may enable potential suspects to adapt their behaviour to evade detection or deter individuals from assisting police investigations. MPS anti-corruption investigations are targeted at MPS

23 https://www.danielmorganpanel.independent.gov.uk/ 24 https://www.ucpi.org.uk/

Page 11 of 16 police officers suspected of misconduct. Such individuals are typically aware of policing techniques and procedures and may use such knowledge to avoid detection and/or prosecution. Ongoing work may identify new lines of enquiry and/or further matters requiring investigation. Consequently the significance of any related information may be subject to change.

Such information is likely to constitute personal data including ‘sensitive personal data’, which is defined in the Data Protection Act 1998 as including data relating to the commission or alleged commission of an offence and any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings. The disclosure of such information is likely to be in breach of one or more data protection principles and may cause unwarranted harm. The legitimate public interest can be served via other means and in relation to personal data, there is no presumption of disclosure.

Similar considerations apply to the other investigations named in your requests.

------

Due to the volume of information held and the number of variables pertinent to your request, I am unable to suggest an alternative formulation of your request that would enable information to be provided within the appropriate cost limit. Even if this were possible, complying with your request could impose a disproportionate burden upon the MPS due to the:  number of documents that would need to be read in order to establish the harm in disclosure  ongoing work and other means of satisfy the legitimate public interest in disclosure  potential for one or more FOIA exemptions to be applied to much of the information.

------

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper titled ‘Complaint Rights’.

Yours sincerely

Brian Wilson Information Law Advisor

Page 12 of 16 LEGAL ANNEX

Section 1 (General right of access to information held by public authorities) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states:

(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled— (a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and (b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/1

Section 12 (Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states:

(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.

(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.

(3) In subsections (1) and (2) “the appropriate limit” means such amount as may be prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation to different cases.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, where two or more requests for information are made to a public authority—

(a) by one person, or (b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign, the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.

(5)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purposes of this section as to the costs to be estimated and as to the manner in which they are to be estimated.

Section 17(5) (Refusal of a request) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states:

(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that fact. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/17

Page 13 of 16 The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 state:

The appropriate limit

3.—(1) This regulation has effect to prescribe the appropriate limit referred to in section 9A(3) and (4) of the 1998 Act and the appropriate limit referred to in section 12(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act. (2) In the case of a public authority which is listed in Part I of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, the appropriate limit is £600. (3) In the case of any other public authority, the appropriate limit is £450. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/regulation/3/made

Estimating the cost of complying with a request – general

4.—(1) This regulation has effect in any case in which a public authority proposes to estimate whether the cost of complying with a relevant request would exceed the appropriate limit. (2) A relevant request is any request to the extent that it is a request– (a) for unstructured personal data within the meaning of section 9A(1) of the 1998 Act, and to which section 7(1) of that Act would, apart from the appropriate limit, to any extent apply, or (b) information to which section 1(1) of the 2000 Act would, apart from the appropriate limit, to any extent apply. (3) In a case in which this regulation has effect, a public authority may, for the purpose of its estimate, take account only of the costs it reasonably expects to incur in relation to the request in– (a) determining whether it holds the information, (b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the information, (c) retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information, and (d) extracting the information from a document containing it. (4) To the extent to which any of the costs which a public authority takes into account are attributable to the time which persons undertaking any of the activities mentioned in paragraph (3) on behalf of the authority are expected to spend on those activities, those costs are to be estimated at a rate of £25 per person per hour. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/regulation/4/made

Estimating the cost of complying with a request – aggregation of related requests

5.—(1) In circumstances in which this regulation applies, where two or more requests for information to which section 1(1) of the 2000 Act would, apart from the appropriate limit, to any extent apply, are made to a public authority—

(a) by one person, or (b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign, the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the total costs which may be taken into account by the authority, under regulation 4, of complying with all of them.

Page 14 of 16

(2) This regulation applies in circumstances in which–

(a) the two or more requests referred to in paragraph (1) relate, to any extent, to the same or similar information, and (b) those requests are received by the public authority within any period of sixty consecutive working days. (3) In this regulation, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/regulation/5/made

Part II of the Code of Practice issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 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.’ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120215124400/http://www.justice.gov.uk/d ownloads/guidance/freedom-and-rights/foi-section45-code-of-practice.pdf

Page 15 of 16 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 protected]

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 an 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 an application to the Information Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

Page 16 of 16