Met HQ Performance & Assurance Information Law & Security Group 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: 2015050000044

18 December 2015

Dear Mr Merccer

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015050000044

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Service (MPS) on 30/04/2015. Your request was as follows:

‘Please name the undercover units since 2000 and the dates they operated’

DECISION

The requested information is fully exempt from disclosure subject to the following provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:  Section 17(1) - Refusal notice  Section 21(1) - Information accessible to the applicant via other means  Section 22(1) - Information intended for future publication

REASON FOR DECISION

Section 21(1) - Information accessible to the applicant by other means

Information accessible to you via other means is as follows:

1) Special Duties Section (SDS) (formerly Special Operations Squad (SOS) and Special Demonstration Squad (SDS))

The Special Operations Squad (SOS) was formed in 1968. Between November 1972 and January 1973 the name attributed to the SOS was changed to the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). In 1997 the name was again altered to become the Special Duties Section to reflect the unit’s widening remit to include domestic extremism. The unit was closed in 2008.

Further information in relation to the SDS can be found via the links below:

Operation Herne: Report 1 - Use of covert identities (July 2013) http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/priorities_and_how_we_are_doing/corporate/operation _herne.v1.pdf

Operation Herne: Report 2 - Allegations of Peter Francis (March 2014) http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/priorities_and_how_we_are_doing/corporate/operation _herne_report2.pdf

Operation Herne: Report 3 - Special Demonstration Squad Reporting: Mentions of Sensitive Campaigns (July 2014) http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/priorities_and_how_we_are_doing/corporate/operation _herne_report3.pdf

Operation Herne Terms of Reference http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/priorities_and_how_we_are_doing/corporate/operation _herne_terms_of_reference.pdf

2) Specialist Operations Crime Covert Operations (SO10) / Specialist Crime Directorate - Covert Policing (SCD10) / Specialist Crime Directorate - Covert Operations (SCD11(10)) / Specialist Crime & Operations - Covert Intelligence (SC&O35)

Since 2000, the main MPS unit responsible for undercover policing targeting serious and organised crime has undergone several name changes as a result of structural changes within the MPS.

The Specialist Crime & Operations Directorate (SC&O) was formed as a result of the merger of 2 directorates, Specialist Crime Directorate (SCD) and (CO) in March 2012.

The 2nd Herne report1 states:

‘In 1988 the MPS created SO10, a formalised unit to deploy undercover officers against serious crime.’ (Page 20, paragraph 5.1)

3) CO14 - Clubs and Vice

Metropolitan Police Service’s Clubs & Vice Unit deployed UCO tactics to covertly investigate criminality within London’s licensed premises and brothels. Operations were primarily Test Purchase / Foundation level.

4) National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU)

The NPOIU was formed within the MPS in 1999. Governance responsibility for the unit was transferred to ACPO in 2006. In 2011, the NPOIU was subsumed under the National Domestic Extremism Unit (NDEU) within the MPS Counter-Terrorism Command (SO15) in 2011.

1 http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/priorities_and_how_we_are_doing/corporate/operation_herne_report2.pdf Further information regarding the NPOIU can be found within the HMIC report titled ‘A review of national police units which provide intelligence on criminality associated with protest’2.

5) Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Integrity Testing Unit

The DPS Integrity Testing Unit’s deployments are managed within the Anti-Corruption section of DPS.

6) SC&O17 - Sexual Offences, Exploitation and Child Abuse Team

There are a number of Covert Internet Investigators, now referred to as UC online, working within the Paedophile Unit of SC&O17.

7) SO15 Special Projects Team (SPT)

Further information regarding the SPT can be found within the HMIC report titled ‘A review of national police units which provide intelligence on criminality associated with protest - progress review’3

8) National Domestic Extremism Unit (NDEU)

The HMIC report titled ‘A review of national police units which provide intelligence on criminality associated with protest’3 states:

‘In January 2011 the Chief Constables' Council, the senior decision-making body for the now replaced Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), ratified the decision for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to become the lead force for the National Domestic Extremism Unit (NDEU). The Chief Constables Council’s intention was that the NDEU would continue to conduct undercover operations associated with gathering intelligence on domestic extremism and public order. However, this plan changed as a result of the findings of HMIC’s 2012 inspection.

Changes to the NDEU’s structure and remit since the HMIC 2012 report

The NDEU restructured in January 2012, and now operates under the umbrella of the MPS Counter Terrorism Command (which is known as SO15). NDEU has also recently been renamed, and is now called the National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit (NDEDIU): however, to avoid confusion we will continue to refer to the unit as the NDEU in this report.

The NDEU’s remit changed at the same time as its restructure and no longer carries out any undercover operations.’

2 https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/media/review-of-national-police-units-which-provide-intelligence-on-criminality- associated-with-protest-20120202.pdf 3 http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/media/national-police-units-which-provide-intelligence-on-criminality-associated-with- protest-progress-review.pdf Section 22(1) (Information intended for future publication)

Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act applies to information that at the time of the request was:  held with a view to its publication;  intended to be published at some future date, whether determined or not; and  in all the circumstances it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to publication.

Section 22 is a qualified exemption. Therefore, I am required to consider the public interest.

Public Interest Test – Section 22(1)

Section 22 - Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Transparency  Disclosure would enhance the transparency, openness and accountability of the MPS.  The date for publication is yet to be determined

Section 22 - Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

The efficient and effective conduct of the service  Consideration of the information is required prior to its public release.  Difficulties in extracting the information prior to publication  The spending of additional time and public funds may be wasteful  Publication is dependent upon the progress of an ongoing criminal investigation and public inquiry

Balance Test

The requested information is intended for disclosure via the Pitchford Inquiry into undercover policing and is currently being collated for this purpose. Information within the scope of your request is also held as part of Operation Herne, an ongoing investigation relating to the activities of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS).

To the extent that information relating to your request is not in the public domain, the public interest favouring disclosure is strengthened by the fact that a date by which further information will be published has not been set.

However, it is pertinent to note that the control of information held for the purpose of an investigation is also important to the effective conduct of an investigation. The College of Policing website contains specific information relating to investigations and communications strategies and states:

‘The way in which investigators manage communications will have a significant effect on the investigation they are conducting. The main purpose of this strategy is to communicate or receive information which assists investigators to progress their enquiries. This can be achieved through internal communications by using colleagues and partners within the criminal justice system and through external communications by using partner agencies and community networks.’4

Furthermore, there are inherent sensitivities regarding information relating to undercover policing. Operation Herne has a broad remit outlined in the Terms of Reference published on the MPS website. The MPS is currently dealing with a number of media enquiries, civil claims and information requests in addition to conducting an investigation and preparing for a public inquiry. Due to the interrelated and ongoing nature of issues relating to the SDS, there is a need for consistency, consultation and a significant overlap in resources.

Due to the interrelated, complex nature of the investigation and related matters any information or disclosure should be considered in the context of existing lines of inquiry and/or other information and procedures.

To disclose information held with a view to publication on an ad hoc basis, one document at a time, multiple times, whilst related circumstances are subject to change due to the nature of ongoing investigations and procedures are ongoing would require duplication of time, energy and effort. This would be time consuming and may divert resources away from core policing tasks. Each disclosure generates further queries and therefore may have an exponential impact.

The exact time periods over which undercover units operated is difficult to reliably establish due to the amount of time that has elapsed and different circumstances relating to the start and end dates pertinent to undercover units. Whilst some work has been undertaken to ascertain this information, it is still subject to change, pending further enquiries.

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest. The decisive factor in this instance is the timing of the disclosure in the context of the scope, duration, complexity and sensitivity of an ongoing investigation, public inquiry and the associated complexities involved in considering and extracting information for disclosure. In the context of various investigations, proceedings and previous disclosures relating to undercover policing, the spending of additional time and public funds may be inefficient.

Therefore, it would be reasonable in all the circumstances that further information should be withheld from disclosure whilst related information is being collated with a view to future publication.

------

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information Commissioner with your complaint.

Yours sincerely

Brian Wilson Information Law Advisor

4 http://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/investigative-strategies/communications-strategy 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 17(1) (Refusal of a request) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states:

A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of 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 that fact, (b) specifies the exemption in question, and (c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/17

Section 21 (Information accessible to applicant by other means) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states:

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

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)— (a) information may be reasonably accessible to the applicant even though it is accessible only on payment, and (b) information is to be taken to be reasonably accessible to the applicant if it is information which the public authority or any other person is obliged by or under any enactment to communicate (otherwise than by making the information available for inspection) to members of the public on request, whether free of charge or on payment. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1), information which is held by a public authority and does not fall within subsection (2)(b) is not to be regarded as reasonably accessible to the applicant merely because the information is available from the public authority itself on request, unless the information is made available in accordance with the authority’s publication scheme and any payment required is specified in, or determined in accordance with, the scheme. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/21

Section 22(1) (Information intended for future publication) of the Act Freedom of Information Act 2000 states:

(1) Information is exempt information if— (a) the information is held by the public authority with a view to its publication, by the authority or any other person, at some future date (whether determined or not), (b) the information was already held with a view to such publication at the time when the request for information was made, and (c) it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the information should be withheld from disclosure until the date referred to in paragraph (a). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/22

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 and encouraged to discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and assist with any problems.

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 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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Phone: 01625 545 700