078 15 FOI Advice on Sex Offenders

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 23 October 2014 11:31 Subject: *** ALL TO READ *** RIPA REQUESTS Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear All Case Nos 1578/14; 1606/14; 1613/14/ 1629/14; 1631/14; 1636/14; 1638/14; 1672/14; 1690/14 By way of update I am currently compiling the result advice for the RIPA requests which should be circulated tomorrow morning, after the National Policing Lead has confirmed they are content with the advice. For requests submitted by the same applicant these can be aggregated together for cost purposes. For any force where Section 12 is relevant we are happy for you to issue a refusal notice and provide an explanation as to why cost is relevant. However, if a request just relates to comms data (e.g. case no 1440/14) there is no harm in including the number of RIPA applications that would require a manual search as the total number of comms data only by force has been disclosed previously and is published. With regard to requests asking for ALL RIPA APPLICATIONS, if it relates to several years of information, we can see no harm in stating how many RIPA applications you would have to search through in that time period for excess costs to apply. However, care should be taken for any requests which are asking for annualised financial year information for ALL RIPA requests which includes, comms data; directed surveillance and intrusive surveillance *************************************************************************** **************S31(1)(a)(b) within your explanation as to why cost is a factor. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards Heather

- 1 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

Date created: 23 October 2014 Caseworker: Heather Waller

Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 892 9010

National Advice Regarding CRU Case No 001608/14

Avon & Somerset Constabulary

Bedfordshire Police

British Transport Police

Cambridgeshire Constabulary

Cheshire Constabulary

City of London Police

Cleveland Police

CNC

Cumbria Constabulary

Derbyshire Constabulary

Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

Dorset Police

Durham Constabulary

Dyfed Powys Police

Essex Police

Gloucestershire Constabulary

Greater Manchester Police

Gwent Police

Hampshire Constabulary

Hertfordshire Constabulary - 2 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Humberside Police

Kent Police

Lancashire Constabulary

Lincolnshire Police

Merseyside Police

MOD

North Wales Police

North Yorkshire Police

Northamptonshire Police

Northumbria Police

Nottinghamshire Police

PSNI

South Wales Police

South Yorkshire Police

Staffordshire Police

Suffolk Constabulary

Surrey Police

Thames Valley Police

Warwickshire Police

West Mercia Constabulary

West Midlands Police

West Yorkshire Police have received the below request submitted by *********S40(2).

Q1: On how many occasions has your police force made Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act applications for information between 1/1/2000 and today’s date, 7 October 2014?

Q2: Please provide a breakdown of many individual RIPA applications have been made in each year between 2000 and 2014.

- 3 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Q3: Please describe the system on which the force’s RIPA records are held.

CLARIFICATION TO NORTH WALES:

Clarification Request: - Could you please clarify the kind of RIPA applications you are referring to? For example many applications are for surveillance or do you require information relating to RIPA applications for telecoms information?

Clarification Response: - Could I please have all RIPA applications, please – surveillance and telecoms records.

The advice from a national perspective is:

North Wales Police has obtained clarification from the applicant and the advice has been compiled taking into account the applicant requires information for all RIPA applications.

Background to this Request

Numerous FOI requests have been received from individuals/journalists recently following the disclosure that the Interception of Communications Commissioner (IOCCO) has confirmed that he is to investigate whether police forces were overusing their powers to acquire communications data (see below links) and arises from the recent “Plebgate” affair where the MPS confirmed they had sought a journalist’s communications data as part of their investigation: http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/09/05/surveillance-watchdog-iocco-investigate- police-misuse-phone-data-deny-link-plebgate https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/09/14/gavin-millar-qc-routine- government-surveillance-of-journalists-communications-is-in-breach-of-international- law/

In addition to the above media releases other disclosures on the Press Gazette website state that Thames Valley Police and Kent Police have also admitted that they used RIPA in order to obtain data relating to the activities of journalists, see below links: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/fourth-police-force-admits-using-ripa-bug-journalists- car-says-seizure-agencys-phone-records-was http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/second-police-force-admits-using-ripa-spy-journalists- phone-records-and-out-confidential-sources

Clearly it is too early to make any further comment on whether the police have carried out such activity until the IOCCO have completed their independent regulatory review and made comment. It is for this reason that care must be taken in not revealing police operational activity, despite the recent revelations by the MPS, Thames Valley

- 4 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Police and Kent Police.

National Position

A meeting was held in London last week between the CRU, relevant Stakeholders and the National Policing Lead for RIPA (Comms Data) to determine whether there should be any change in stance (from an FOI perspective).

The following points were discussed:

1. The CRU was made aware that all Chief Constables had recently received a letter from the Home Affairs Select Committee seeking individual force RIPA data which in our opinion sits outside of FOI. Whilst the CRU Manager (Mark Wise) circulated an email to all forces advising that the opinion of the CRU was that the data can be provided as it sits outside of FOI legislation and should be treated as business as usual, further correspondence has since been sent to Chief officers from the National policing lead providing an update on further discussions with the HASC.

2. It was confirmed that the IOCCO has started an independent review into the use of RIPA, the outcome of which will result in a report being submitted to the Prime Minister with an intention to publish his findings. Some forces are reporting issues in the collection of the required data.

Following deliberations it was agreed that with regard to point 1 this is completely separate to the FOI requests and has no impact on our stance. For point 2 discussions around the use of Section 22 Information Intended for Future Publication resulted in a general consensus that at this time Section 22 is not tenable.

For information purposes and ease of reference I have provided below a breakdown of the national stance for the Interception of Communications; Acquisition of Communications Data; Directed and intrusive Surveillance

1. Interception of Communications

The national advice provided in relation to previous requests remains unchanged and the agreed national perspective is that a NCND response should be given.

2. Acquisition of Communications Data

Communications data information regarding volume is suitable for release. If the force has the capability to break down the figures into categories great care should be taken to have general categories so that small numbers of a particular crime category

- 5 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. does not identify that data communications has been requested and used as a tactic. It is also worthy of note that communications data is used to assist with all manner of police enquiries and is not necessarily associated with surveillance of individuals. Annual figures (financial year) only should be released.

3. Directed and Intrusive Surveillance.

Directed surveillance (DSA) – DSA volume information is suitable for release. As with communications data, care should be taken with crime/offence categories in order not to reveal tactics against specific operations.

Annual figures (financial year) only should be released.

Intrusive Surveillance - The national advice provided in relation to previous requests remains unchanged and the agreed national perspective is that a NCND response should be given.

Responding to this Requests

Cost may be a factor for some forces dependent on how you store your information. If Section 12 is relevant to your force when issuing your refusal notice care should be taken that you do not inadvertently disclose an annualised total number of all RIPA applications. Forces must take into account other requests submitted by the applicant on the same subject which should be aggregated for the purposes of costs.

As detailed in earlier RIPA advice, case no 1578/14 and *********S40(2)generic advice cost takes precedence over any application of exemptions or use of NCND. We have circulated an email to forces separately advising that if cost is a factor forces can respond.

For information purposes when issuing a Section 12 refusal there is no requirement to include a partial NCND.

*** There was an error within the advice for case numbers 1420/14 and 1440/14 inasmuch as we stated ‘… Although the total number of all requests made under RIPA at force level, by financial years, has been asked previously and a total provided with a partial NCND …’ This should have read ‘… Although the total number of comms data and directed surveillance application requests made under RIPA at force level, by financial years, has been asked previously and a total disclosed together with a partial NCND…’ This error did not have any implications on the NCND advice but we felt it must be pointed out to forces at this stage. ***

In Summary: In this case, Q1 and 2 parts of the request is asking for all RIPA application data, forces can disclose the acquisition of communications data (part 1 - 6 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Chapter II) and the Directed surveillance (non-intrusive data) (Part II), as a total as the applicant hasn’t asked for them to be broken down into separate figures. *********************************************************************S 31(1)(a)(b). You will then need to apply a partial NCND for any other information that is held (harm and PIT is at the bottom of this advice).

If you are one of the four forces where there is a formal acknowledgement within the public domain, Section 21 Information Reasonably Accessible by Other Means can be cited and the applicant directed to the relevant link, which will be in addition to the stance provided within the above paragraph.

A vast amount of background information has been provided in case no 1440/14 relating to RIPA legislation and this remains unchanged. I have pasted this below for ease of reference:

In respect of Q3 (describe the system) – forces will record this information in different formats but providing you only disclose generic information (Computer, crime management systems, individual spreadsheets), then subject to local assessment, we can see no harm in releasing the information.

Background (for your information, but it can be communicated to the applicant)

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) is often a complex piece of legislation to interpret and due to the nature of requests around this subject the advice previously given has been reviewed with some amendment to include all aspects of the act in order to provide a better understanding of the issues.

RIPA is a regulatory framework around a range of investigatory powers to ensure the powers are used lawfully and in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It also requires, in particular, those authorising the use of covert techniques to give proper consideration to whether their use is necessary and proportionate.

Part I - Communications

Part II - Surveillance and covert human intelligence sources

Part III - Investigation of electronic data protected by encryption etc

Part IV - Scrutiny etc. of investigatory powers and of the functions of the intelligence services

Part V - Miscellaneous and supplemental

The following bodies oversee the use of RIPA:

Office of Surveillance Commissioner - The OSC's aim is to provide effective and efficient oversight of the conduct of covert surveillance and covert human intelligence sources and investigation of electronic data protected by encryption by public authorities in accordance with Parts II and III of RIPA. Details of the current annual - 7 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. report can be found on the OSC web site.

http://www.surveillancecommissioners.gov.uk/about_annual.html.

Interception of Communications Commissioner - The interception of communications commissioner is both in relation to the interception of communications and access to communications data. Statistics are published in http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0809/hc09/0901/0901.asp.

RIPA regulates the following areas:

 The interception of communications (for instance, the content of telephone calls, e-mails or postal letters). RIPA part 1 chapter I.

 The acquisition and disclosure of communications data (information from communications service providers relating to communications). RIPA part I chapter II.

 The carrying out of covert surveillance. RIPA part II.

o in private premises or vehicles (‘intrusive surveillance’) or

o in public places but likely to obtain private information about a particular person (‘directed surveillance’)

 The use of covert human intelligence sources (such as informants or undercover officers). RIPA part II.

 Access to electronic data protected by encryption or passwords. RIPA part III.

RIPA provides a number of important safeguards:

 It strictly limits the people who can lawfully use covert techniques, the purposes for and conditions in which they can be used and how the material obtained must be handled

 It reserves the more intrusive techniques for intelligence and law enforcement agencies acting against only the most serious crimes, including in the interests of national security

 It provides for the appointment, by the Prime Minister, of independent oversight Commissioners and the establishment of an independent tribunal to hear complaints from individuals who believe the techniques have been used inappropriately (IPT). In the discharge of their functions, the commissioner’s and staff carry out a programme of inspection visits, reports and meetings with an annual report is laid before Parliament.

Disclosure issues: Every effort should be made to release information under FOI. However, to confirm or deny many of the police actions around RIPA and in particular specialist tactical areas would undermine ongoing investigations, reveal policing techniques, risk the identification of individuals, the possibly of revealing

- 8 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. involvement of any exempt bodies and the risk in undermining National Security. Revealing information that specific tactics are used in certain circumstances (e.g. murder, kidnap, and drugs importation) would help subjects avoid detection, and inhibit the prevention and detection of crime. This could either lead to the identification of specific cases or in providing this level of information at force level is likely to result in significantly small authorisation numbers being published and presents a real risk of identifying the resources available to individual departments to covertly monitor groups or individuals likely to be committing offences under their remit

It is important the Police Service discloses information regarding surveillance activity under RIPA where it is appropriate to do so but some authority information or specific covert law enforcement techniques is not to be disclosed for the above reasons. To do so would disclose tactical information to the detriment of those actual techniques. In any case due to the legal constraints under Chapter 1 of part 1 of the RIPA legislation (intercept) it may actually be a criminal offence to do so (Sec 19).

Form of words for the partial NCND

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) 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 FOIA 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 exemptions apply.

(Force Name) can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security Bodies

Section 44(2) Prohibitions on Disclosure

Section 24(2) National Security

Section 30(3) Investigations

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Sections 23 and 44 are absolute exemptions, which mean that the legislators has identified that harm would be caused by release and there is no - 9 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. requirement to consider the public interest test.

Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption which means the public interest must be considered.

With Sections 24(2) and 31(3) being prejudiced based qualified exemptions, there is a requirement for us to evidence harm confirming or denying information is held and also consider the public interest.

Harm in Confirming or Denying Information is Held

Every effort should be made to release information under FOI. However, to confirm or deny whether any other information is held around RIPA and in particular specialist tactical areas would undermine ongoing investigations, reveal policing techniques, risk the possibility of revealing involvement of any exempt bodies and the risk in undermining National Security.

The Police Service is committed to demonstrating proportionality and accountability regarding surveillance techniques to the appropriate authorities. However, if the Police Service were to either confirm or deny that any other information is held, other covert surveillance tactics will either be compromised or significantly weakened. The impact could undermine national security, any on-going investigations and any future investigations, as it would enable targeted individuals/groups to become surveillance aware. This would help subjects avoid detection, and inhibit the prevention and detection of crime.

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 those who commit or plan to commit acts of terrorism. In order to achieve this goal, it is vitally important that information sharing takes place with other police forces and security bodies within the UK and Internationally in order to support counter- terrorism measures in the fight to deprive international terrorist networks of their ability to commit crime.

It should be recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. The UK faces a serious and sustained threat from violent extremists and this threat is greater in scale and ambition than any of the terrorist threats in the past.

Since 2006, the UK Government have published the threat level, based upon current intelligence. The current security level for England & Wales is set at Severe, see below link: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/threat-levels.html

- 10 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. surveillance tactics will either be compromised or significantly weakened. If the Police Service denies a tactic is used in one request but then exempts for another, requesters can determine the ‘exempt’ answer is in fact a technique used in policing. The impact could undermine national security, any on-going investigations and any future investigations, as it would enable targeted individuals/groups to become surveillance aware. This would help subjects avoid detection, and inhibit the prevention and detection of crime.

Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.

Public Interest Considerations

Section 24 Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that any other information is held

The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and resources distributed within an area of policing. To confirm whether any other information exists relating to a specific tactic would enable the generic public to hold (force name) to account where RIPA applications are concerned. In the current climate of cuts and with the call for transparency of public spending this would enable improved public debate.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that any other information is held Security measures are put in place to protect the community that we serve. To reveal exact detail of the number of RIPA applications would reveal covert investigative activity that may or may not have taken place and would highlight to terrorists and individuals intent on carrying out criminal behaviour, covert policing activity. This would ultimately increase the risk of harm to the general public and significantly undermine any ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the United Kingdom and increase the risk of harm to the public.

Taking into account the current security climate within the United Kingdom, no information (such as the citing of an exemption which confirms information pertinent to this request is held, or conversely, stating ‘no information is held’) which may aid a terrorist should be disclosed. To what extent this information may aid a terrorist is unknown, but it is clear that it will have an impact on a force’s ability to monitor terrorist activity.

Irrespective of what information is or isn’t held, the public entrust the Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety and protection and the only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with what is placed into the public domain.

The cumulative effect of terrorists gathering information from various sources would be even more impactive when linked to other information gathered from various sources about terrorism. The more information disclosed over time will give a more - 11 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. detailed account of the tactical infrastructure of not only a force area but also the country as a whole.

Any incident that results from such a disclosure would by default affect National Security.

In addition, other organisations outside the Police Service are widely engaged in submitting RIPA applications and therefore by confirming or denying that any other information is held would harm the close relationship that exists with such organisations, where trust and confidence in this specific area has been built up in the exchange of information and financial assistance during the Criminal Justice process.

To confirm or deny whether (force name) hold any other information would allow inferences to be made about the nature and extent of national security related activities which may or may not take place in a given area. This could enable a terrorist group(s) to take steps to avoid detection, and as such, confirmation or denial would be damaging to National Security.

By confirming or denying any policing arrangements of this nature would render national security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.

Section 30

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that any other information is held Confirming or denying that any other information exists relevant to this request would lead to a better informed public improving their knowledge and understanding of how the Police Service adhere to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for specific cases and the acquisition and disclosure of communications data under Part 1 Charter 2 of RIPA generally.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that any other information is held

By its very nature, information held relating to covert policing and tactics is sensitive in nature. Under FOI there is a requirement to comply with Section 1(1)(a) and confirm what information is held. In some cases it is that confirmation, or not, which could disclose facts harmful to covert policing and in such cases (force name) takes advantage of its ability under FOI legislation, to, where appropriate, neither confirm or deny that any other information pertinent to this request is or is not held. The Police Service will never disclose information which could identify investigative activity and therefore undermine their investigations. To do so would hinder the prevention or detection of crime.

- 12 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Confirmation that any other information is held would prejudice how investigations are carried out in the future by revealing covert investigative activity. This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and affect (force name) law enforcement capabilities. Confirmation would also undermine the partnership approach to investigations.

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) – confirming information is held

By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the request exists, would lead to better public awareness into the intricacies of RIPA legislation and applications submitted under Part 1 Chapter 2 of RIPA. This may lead to more information (intelligence) being submitted from the public which may culminate in a reduction of crime

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that any other information is held

By confirming or denying that any other information exists would compromise the effective delivery of operational law enforcement. Tactics could be compromised which could hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime could be committed and individuals placed at risk.

Balancing Test

The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether any other information is or is not held if to do so could undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity, particularly applications under RIPA legislation, is appropriate and balanced in matters of national security, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.

In this case there is also no requirement to satisfy any public concern over the legality of police operations and the tactics we may or may not use. The force is already held to account by independent bodies such as The Office of the Surveillance Commissioner and The Interception of Communications Commissioners Office. These inspections assess each constabulary’s compliance with the legislation and a full report is submitted to the Prime Minister and Scottish Ministers containing statistical information. Our accountability is therefore not enhanced by confirming or denying that any other information pertinent to this request is held.

- 13 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. None of the above can be viewed as an inference that any other information does or does not exist.

Finally – Bearing in mind that both the IOCCO and Home Office Select Committee are now completing independent reviews in respect of the use of RIPA by the Police service, then the number of requests currently being submitted by this applicant and the substantial workload this is now creating, is in our opinion, disproportionately burdensome and unwarranted. As a result we consider a Sec 14 warning should be provided as part of your response.

Form of words for Section 14(1) Warning Notice

In response to your Freedom of Information request date xxxxx (insert date) xxxx (insert name of force) I would like to point out the following.

The Freedom of Information Act is a piece of legislation which quite rightly opens up public authorities to greater scrutiny and accountability.

Under the provision of the Act an authority must process a request in writing from a named applicant under the terms and conditions of the legislation. Whilst giving maximum support to individuals genuinely seeking to exercise the right to know, the Commissioner's general approach will be sympathetic towards authorities where requests can be characterised as being part of a campaign. Therefore with regard to this request we are including a warning under Section 14(1)(Vexatious Request) of the Freedom of Information Act that any future requests may attract this exemption

If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.

- 14 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 23 October 2014 15:52 To: 'Cherry, David'; 'Cumbria Constabulary - FOI (******S40(2)@cumbria.pnn.police.uk)' Subject: CASE NO 1636/14 - ******S40(2) - RIPA - RESULT ADVICE

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU David With reference to the below request which you referred to us for guidance, having been submitted by******S40(2): Between January 1 2004 and today’s date (11 October 2014), on how many occasions has your police force used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to obtain information from the telephone records of journalists, news organisations or any other news organisation employees? Please list all such cases, including: the date, the name of the person (and their position) /organisation concerned, when their records were obtained, what the purpose of obtaining the information was (i.e. what was the police force looking for) and whether the police force succeeded in obtaining the information. If you are unable to answer to answer these questions in full, please provide as much information as possible. You confirmed to us that retrieval of the information would exceed the cost threshold. The request relates to comms data information only and we are happy for you to issue a Section 12 refusal notice. As discussed and to confirm there was a slight error with the advice for case no 1440/14 please see below paragraph:

- 15 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. requests made under RIPA at force level, by financial years, has been asked previously and a total disclosed together with a partial NCND…’ This error did not have any implications on the NCND advice but we felt it must be pointed out to forces at this stage. *** Regards Heather Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

- 16 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 23 October 2014 15:54 To: 'PSNI Generic Mailbox ([email protected])' Subject: CASE NO 1613/14 - ********S40(2) - RIPA - RESULT ADVICE

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU Jane With reference to the below request which you referred to us for guidance, having been submitted by********S40(2): Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would like to request details of the PSNI's use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to obtain communication data, e.g. phone records, internet usage, etc. Please disclose the following for each year for as far back as can be determined within the time constraints of the FOI Act: 1. The number of requests made to obtain communications data using Ripa 2. The number of authorised requests made to obtain communications data using Ripa 3. For each of the above, please disclose the number of times Ripa has been invoked in relation to obtaining communications data held by or on in relation to media organisations/journalists 4. The amount paid to phone companies to access communications data 5. The amount paid to internet service providers to access communications data REFINEMENT: I would like to request details for each year from 2010 to 2014 so far, or for fewer years if necessary

- 17 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. ADVICE Further to our conversation when you confirmed retrieval of the information would exceed the cost threshold. We are happy for you to respond by issuing a Section 12 refusal notice. As the request relates to communications data only there is no harm in providing the total number with your cost refusal explanation. When the applicant refines the request please come back to us for further advice. Regards Heather Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

- 18 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 03 November 2014 13:06 To: 'Thames Valley Police ([email protected])' Subject: CASE NO 1672/14 - ******S40(2).- RIPA - CASE CLOSED

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY Amy As discussed, thank you for advising that the below request submitted by ******S40(2).exceeds the FOI cost threshold. I shall close the case our end but if the applicant refines the request to within cost please come back to us for further advice. Following the Press Gazette FoI about RIPA, I would like to submit a refined request under the Act. Can Thames Valley Police supply me from disciplinary case and or investigation notes about officers and police staff where an allegation is that they have supplied information to a journalist or news media organisation the number of times it has used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or other acts to obtain phone (including text and social media messaging) records, email records or other data belonging to a journalist or news media organisation between January 1 2004 and today's date, October 15 2014. To assist your FoI team, I would like the information to include Dates of instances What type of data was seized: for example but not exclusively phone call logs, records of text messages, other contact via other platforms such as Facebook, emails What Act was used Any written application to a senior officer for clearance to seize this material Any instances where this request was turned down Which officers, by name and rank, made such an application Which officers, by name and rank, approved the request to use an act to obtain journalists' information To which company was the application for information made to (ie Vodafone, BT) Any attached note, briefing, email, record or similar to or from any senior officer who held a position of LPA commander or above or any member of the communications department at Thames Valley Police If the information resulted in any disciplinary proceedings being taken against any officer or police staff member and if the allegation was proven and disciplinary action taken If the force retained the obtained information Given the nature of this request, I would agree that any record released under this request is redacted of the name of the officer or police staff member who was

- 19 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. the subject of the investigation, the name of the journalist whose information was obtained and any other part of a document or record that refers to other investigatory methods used in the case and other evidence gathered. The aim of this request is only to discover how many times RIPA or other acts have been used in relation to journalists and their sources and when, not private information about the subject of the investigation nor application. Naturally given the time this is submitted, the 20 working days for a response should start from tomorrow, October 16. Regards Heather Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

- 20 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 03 November 2014 15:37 To: 'PSNI Generic Mailbox ([email protected])' Subject: CASE NO 1702/14 - RESULT ADVICE - ******S40(2) - RIPA

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Attachments: 0001_1440 14 V1 RESULT ADVICE_20140925_093154.DOC

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU Dear All With reference to the below request which you referred to us for guidance having been submitted by******S40(2): I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act to request the following information: Q1: Has the PSNI ever used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to further investigate a journalist based on a story they have published? Q2: Does the PSNI have a policy in place to deal with issues regarding using RIPA to identify a journalists source on a story? ADVICE This request is very similar to that of ******S40(2)request, case no 1440/14. As stated within the attached advice***************************************************************************************** ***********************************S31(1)(a)(b). In order to use RIPA, there must be an investigation, and a request to use RIPA would be attached to the investigation file. In this case either the request will exceed the cost threshold and you can issue a Section 12 refusal notice or the request will require a full NCND as detailed within the advice for case no 1440/14. Regards

- 21 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Heather Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

- 22 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

Date created: 11 November 2014 Caseworker: Heather Waller

Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 892 9010

National Advice Regarding CRU Case No 001613/14

PSNI has received the refined request (in blue bold) submitted by ******S40(2) following their Section 12 refusal. The ad.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would like to request details of the PSNI's use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to obtain communication data, e.g. phone records, internet usage, etc.

Please disclose the following for each year for as far back as can be determined within the time constraints of the FOI Act:

1. The number of requests made to obtain communications data using Ripa

2. The number of authorised requests made to obtain communications data using Ripa

3. For each of the above, please disclose the number of times Ripa has been invoked in relation to obtaining communications data held by or on in relation to media organisations/journalists

4. The amount paid to phone companies to access communications data

5. The amount paid to internet service providers to access communications data

REFINEMENT:

I would like to request details for each year from 2010 to 2014 so far, or for fewer years if necessary

CLARIFICATION FOLLOWING SECTION 12 REFUSAL

I am submitting the following Freedom of Information request as a refined version of F-2014-04849, due to the previous request being declined on cost grounds:

I would like to request details of the PSNI's use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to obtain communication data, e.g. phone records, internet usage, etc.

In each year from 2010 to 2014 so far (or for fewer years if necessary to - 23 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. bring this request within the time constraints of the FOI Act) please disclose the following:

1. The number of requests made to obtain communications data using Ripa

2. The number of authorised requests made to obtain communications data using Ripa

3. For each of the above, please disclose the number of times Ripa has been invoked in relation to obtaining communications data held by or in relation to media organisations/journalists

4. The amount paid to Communications Services Providers (CSP), such as telephone or internet companies, to access communications data.

The advice from a national perspective is:

Thank you for confirming that you have retrieved all of the information within the cost threshold. This request relates to the Acquisition of Communications Data under Part I Chapter II of RIPA legislation.

The national stance when dealing with requests for communications data information regarding volume is suitable for release. If the force has the capability to break down the figures into categories************************************************************** ********************************************************************** ************************S31(1)(a)(b). It is also worthy of note that communications data is used to assist with all manner of police enquiries and is not necessarily associated with surveillance of individuals. Annual figures (financial year) only should be released.

For information purposes, the total number of notices and authorisations for each public authority under RIPA 2000 Part I Chapter II is published within the 2013 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, see below link: http://www.iocco- uk.info/docs/2013%20Annual%20Report%20of%20the%20IOCC%20Accessible%20Vers ion.pdf

Responding to this Request

The applicant is asking for information which falls under Part I Chapter II of RIPA inasmuch as it is asking for acquisition of communications data only (information from communications service providers relating to communications).

Question 1

This question is asking for the number of requests (applications) made to obtain communications data under RIPA, between the years 2010 to 2014.

- 24 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. The total number of communications data applications can be disclosed.

Question 2

This question is asking for a further breakdown of the statistics requested within question 1. Practitioners will need to locally assess the information captured by this question to ensure disclosure would not compromise any ongoing investigations, some of which may be covert OR the effective delivery of operational law enforcement (Section 30(1)(a) Investigations OR Section 31(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement).

Question 3

This question will require a full neither confirm nor deny response by virtue of Section 23(5) Information supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies; Section 24(2) National Security; Section 30(3) Investigations; Section 31(3) Law Enforcement; Section 40(5) Personal Information.

Question 4

As the applicant is asking for the total amount of money paid to Communication Service Providers (CSPs) to access communications data we can see no harm in release.

A form of words to assist you with your NCND can be found within the advice provided for case no 1440/14 which I have pasted below. However please ensure you make it case specific to this request:

Form of words which can be communicated to applicant

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(91)(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 FOIA 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.

(Force Name) can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;

Section 24(2) National Security;

Section 30(3) Investigations;

- 25 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Section 31(3) Law enforcement;

Section 40(5) Personal Information

This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

Sections 23 and 44 are absolute exemptions, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release. In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.

With regard to Section 40(5) forces should articulate the Data Protection Principle which would be breached by confirming whether information is or isn’t held. In this case, it would be the first principle that is breached inasmuch as personal information must be fairly and lawfully processed.

Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption which means the public interest must be considered.

Harm in Confirming or Denying Information is Held

Every effort should be made to release information under FOI. However, to confirm or deny many of the police actions around RIPA and in particular specialist tactical areas would undermine ongoing investigations, reveal policing techniques, risk the identification of individuals, the possibility of revealing involvement of any exempt bodies and the risk in undermining National Security. Revealing information that a RIPA application has been submitted may in itself be all the information offenders want. This awareness would help subjects avoid detection, and inhibit the prevention and detection of crime. This could either lead to the identification of specific cases or in providing this level of information at force level is likely to result in significantly small authorisation numbers being published which presents a real risk of identifying the resources available to individual departments to covertly monitor groups or individuals, which may include journalists and news organisation employees, likely to be committing offences under their remit

- 26 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. terrorism measures in the fight to deprive international terrorist networks of their ability to commit crime.

The Police Service is committed to demonstrating proportionality and accountability regarding surveillance techniques to the appropriate authorities. However, if the Police Service were to either confirm or deny that information exists, other covert surveillance tactics will either be compromised or significantly weakened. If the Police Service denies a tactic is used in one request but then exempts for another, requesters can determine the ‘exempt’ answer is in fact a technique used in policing. The impact could undermine national security, any on-going investigations and any future investigations, as it would enable targeted individuals/groups to become surveillance aware. This would help subjects avoid detection, and inhibit the prevention and detection of crime.

The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built and the police have a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those responsible for committing crime or those that plan to commit crime. To do this the police require evidence and that evidence can come from a number of sources, some of which is obtained through covert means. Having obtained sufficient evidence offenders are charged with offences and placed before the courts. By confirming or denying that information pertinent to this request exists could directly influence the stages of that process, and jeopardise current investigations or prejudice law enforcement.

Public Interest Considerations

Section 24 Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held

The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and resources distributed within an area of policing. To confirm whether information exists relating to a specific tactic would enable the generic public to hold (force name) to account where RIPA applications are concerned. In the current climate of cuts and with the call for transparency of public spending this would enable improved public debate.

- 27 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that any other information is held Security measures are put in place to protect the community that we serve. As evidenced within the harm to confirm detail of specific types of RIPA applications would reveal covert investigative activity that may or may not have taken place and would highlight to terrorists and individuals intent on carrying out criminal behaviour, covert policing activity. This would ultimately increase the risk of harm to the general public and significantly undermine any ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the United Kingdom and increase the risk of harm to the public.

Any incident that results from such a disclosure would by default affect National Security.

In addition, other organisations outside the Police Service are widely engaged in submitting RIPA applications and therefore by confirming or denying that information is held would harm the close relationship that exists with such organisations, where trust and confidence in this specific area has been built up in the exchange of information and financial assistance during the Criminal Justice process.

To confirm or deny whether (force name) hold information would allow inferences to be made about the nature and extent of national security related activities which may or may not take place in a given area. This could enable a terrorist group(s) to take steps to avoid detection, and as such, confirmation or denial would be damaging to National Security.

- 28 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Section 30

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held Confirming or denying that information exists relevant to this request would lead to a better informed public improving their knowledge and understanding of how the Police Service adhere to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for specific cases and the acquisition and disclosure of communications data under Part 1 Charter 2 of RIPA generally.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that information is held

By its very nature, information held relating to covert policing and tactics is sensitive in nature. Under FOI there is a requirement to comply with Section 1(1)(a) and confirm what information is held. In some cases it is that confirmation, or not, which could disclose facts harmful to covert policing and in such cases (force name) takes advantage of its ability under FOI legislation, to, where appropriate, neither confirm or deny that the information requested, is or is not held. The Police Service will never disclose information which could identify investigative activity and therefore undermine their investigations. To do so would hinder the prevention or detection of crime.

Confirmation that information is held would prejudice how investigations are carried out in the future by revealing covert investigative activity. This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and affect (force name) law enforcement capabilities. Confirmation would also undermine the partnership approach to investigations.

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) – confirming information is held

By confirming or denying that information relevant to the request exists, would lead to better public awareness into the intricacies of RIPA legislation and applications submitted under Part 1 Chapter 2 of RIPA. This may lead to more information (intelligence) being submitted from the public which may culminate in a reduction of crime

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that information is held

By confirming or denying that information exists would compromise the effective delivery of operational law enforcement. Tactics could be compromised which could hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime could be committed and individuals placed at risk.

Balancing Test

The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not - 29 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so could undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.

None of the above can be viewed as an inference that information does or does not exist.

If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.

- 30 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 11 November 2014 13:04 To: 'Scottish FOI Central Processing Unit ([email protected])' Subject: CASE NO 1717/14 - RESULT ADVICE - ******S40(2) - RIPA

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Attachments: 0001_1608 14 V1 RESULT ADVICE_20141023_141009.DOC

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU Dear All With reference to the below request which you referred to us for guidance, having been submitted by ******S40(2): Under the Freedom of Information Act, may I have the following information about the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 by Police Scotland since it was formed in April 1 2013? On how many occasions since April 1 has this legislation been used by Police Scotland to access journalists' telephone records (a) for the purposes of a specific investigation or a specific operation; (b) in such a manner as is likely to result in the obtaining of private information about a person (whether or not one specifically identified for the purposes of the investigation or operation); and (c) otherwise than by way of an immediate response to events or circumstances the nature of which is such that it would not be reasonably practicable for an authorisation under this Act to be sought for the carrying out of the surveillance. ADVICE We feel cost is likely to be a factor for this request, as with previous RIPA requests received by Police Service of Scotland. We are happy for you to respond in this way and suggest, as always when issuing your Section 12 refusal notice you invite the applicant to refine the request, if feasible to do so. If you are able to retrieve the information this request will require a full neither confirm nor deny stance by virtue of Section 23(5) Information relating to or - 31 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. concerning certain Security Bodies; Section 44(2) Prohibitions on Disclosure; Section 24(2) National Security; Section 30(3) Investigations; Section 31(3) Law Enforcement. I have attached advice for case no 1608/14 to assist with the wording of the NCND. Regards Heather Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

- 32 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox

Sent: 21 November 2014 11:47

To: '[email protected]'

Subject: CRU 1825/14 - RIPA data submitted to IOCCO.

Attachments: 0001_INITIAL REQUEST FROM TVP_20141113_090935.DOC; Picture (Metafile)

Jonathan

Confirmation that I have sought the views of the IOCCO regarding this data and will update all forces once we get something back.

Regards

Mark

Mark WISE Manager ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit E-mail: [email protected] Telephone : 0844 8929010 Mobile : 07990 551813 c/o ACRO PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

- 33 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. CRU FOI Referral FORM V3 When referring any request to the CRU this form must be completed and sent by e-mail.

1. Force reference number: 003142/14

2. Date request received: 05/11/2014 – rec by PA on 11/11/2014

3. Type of request Initial Request to CRU

4. All known applicant Jason Collie details: Newsquest, Oxford Mail

Newspaper House

Osney Mead

Oxford

OX2 0EJ

[email protected]

01865 425450

5. Actual wording of request: Can I return to the usage of RIPA in regards journalists from a few weeks ago. If you read this Press Gazette Please do not attach a PDF – story, it says all police forces have now supplied paste in or attach e-mail only information about applications and usage to Sir Paul Kennedy and the last quote from you did indicate you would be complying with his request.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/police-chief-constable- ripa-should-absolutely-be-used-investigate-press-leaks

The reason TVP gave for not supplying it to us was the cost and time taken to search them out. Given that has now seemingly been done for Sir Paul, could you please send

me the information supplied to him, redacted of individuals’ names but not the media companies should you deem it fit under any privacy concerns.

6. Person dealing with Jonathan Hands 01865 846033 request and contact number:

- 34 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

7. Reason for referral High media interest for RIPA at the moment and subject to inquiry with ICCO.

This initially came in as a question to our press/media and may be dealt with outside of FoI.

8. If a mandatory referral and you have not requested disclosure advice, confirm your rationale.

9. If a technical query and/or Have several requests from this individual and on this request for disclosure advice subject, therefore S12 and S14 considerations specifically what is the issue?

(For S14 queries please enter as much detail as possible)

10. Do you know what Information from Authorities Bureau has been sent to the information you hold? Commissioner. We are not privy to this information at this time.

- 35 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox

Sent: 03 December 2014 11:33

Subject: ACPO CRU Update - RIPA FOI Requests

Attachments: Picture (Metafile)

RIPA FOI Update.

Following a telecom meeting on Friday with National RIPA policing leads, it was agreed to maintain the current stance ******************************************************************************************************************* *********************************************************************S31(1)(a)(b) - this not only relates to Comms data applications, but also concerns Interception of communications, Directed/intrusive surveillance and CHIS related activity.

The national picture to date is that five forces (MPS, TVP, Kent, Suffolk and Cleveland) have identified that they gathered Comms Data information concerning a journalist as a result of a RIPA application. These are considered to be exceptional cases where the circumstances of the investigation justified the release of the information under public interest. However, ******************************************************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************************************************* ****************************S31(1)(a)(b)

Whilst the focus of the media campaign "Save our Sources" petition relates to an intrusion of confidential journalistic sources by the Police service and questions an excessive use of RIPA which breaches human rights, the FOI requests being submitted also capture other unrelated information "how many occasions has your police force used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to obtain information from the telephone records of journalists, news organisations or any other news organisation employees which is why a non-disclosure approach is being taken in ******************************************************************************************************************* ***************************************************************************************S31(1)(a)(b).

******************************************************************************************************************* ***************************************************************************************S31(1)(a)(b).

Handling of current requests:

CRU 1440/14 (Internal Review - Selected forces), CRU 1866/14 (Refined Request - Selected forces), CRU 1814/14 (Beds, Herts, Essex, Lincs, MPS, Norfolk, TVP, MDP) and CRU 1926/14 (West Mercia).

Previous advice on the subject remains and forces are advised to maintain the national stance in disclosing Comms Data/ Directed surveillance annual or financial data and withholding information / applying NCND to the rest.

CRU 1825/14 (TVP), CRU 1874/14 (NYP, Notts, Northants) and CRU 1821/14 (PSOS) - In respect of the current requests seeking the data sent to the IOCCO ,

You should be aware that on the 6th October 2014, the IOCCO sought data regarding the number of investigations undertaken by police forces where Comms data had been applied for in the past 3

- 36 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. years where the investigation specifically related to contact with a journalist or employee of a newspaper or television company. Both the IOCCO and Home Office have indicated that they will report their findings in the new year. http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/Communications%20Data%20Inquiry%20- %20Request%20for%20Information%20from%20Sir%20Paul%20Kennedy.pdf http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/Inquiry%20Timeline%2003.11.14.pdf

If forces have been unable to locate/retrieve/submit any data as part of the IOCCO inquiry, then the National Policing Leads are happy for a force to respond No information held. However, in relation to the continuation of the NCND approach on use of RIPA, your response should make it clear that there is no information held because you were unable to furnish a return, not because you did not have any such applications.

This approach must be different to those who have been able to identify that ******************************************************************************************************************* ***************************************************************************************S31(1)(a)(b).This information will be exempt as below (plus NCND aligned to 1440/14 response).

In summary:

1. No information provided to IOCCO because it was impossible to do so. No information held (with explanation).

2. Any information submitted to IOCCO, including the information, we have not done it, will be exempt as below.

Sec 22 - Intention to publish.

The problem being that at present we do not know to what the published version of these proposed reports will look like, but it is quite obvious that the more sensitive information will not be disclosed and therefore Sec 22 cannot be applied across all the information captured by the request.

Sec 30 - Investigations.

Each RIPA application will relate to information gathered for the purposes of a specific or on-going police related investigation, the disclosure of which could prejudice future criminal proceedings.

Sec 31- Law enforcement.

The content of the RIPA applications will discuss tactical and operational rationale as to why Comms data applications have been made for each specific investigation. The disclosure of this information will reveal police methodology and identify extremely useful information to those seeking to undermine the law enforcement process or avoid detection.

All forces*********************S31(1)(a)(b)., will also be required to apply an NCND Sec 23(5) / Sec 24(2) in protecting intelligence agency and National security information, and Sec 44 (2) in not identifying forces******************************************************************************************S31(1)(a)(b)..

Any problems , please refer them back to me in

- 37 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. the first instance.

Regards

Mark

Mark WISE Manager ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit E-mail: [email protected] Telephone : 0844 8929010 Mobile : ************S31(1)(a)(b). c/o ACRO PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

- 38 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 22 December 2014 14:52 To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: CRU 1976/14 - Advice on RIPA related FOI request

Bethan

No issues with the redactions other than the fact that they are readable in the current format ?

Thanks Mark

Mark WISE Manager ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit E-mail: [email protected] Telephone : 0844 8929010 Mobile : ********S31(1)(a)(b) c/o ACRO PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

From: [email protected] [mailto:Freedomof.Information@south- wales.pnn.police.uk] Sent: 22 December 2014 10:13 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: FW: CRU 1976/14 - Advice on RIPA related FOI request

Good morning CRU,

Please could you review our response that is attached and advise whether you are happy with the redactions?

Many thanks,

Freedom of Information Team

Data Management Unit & Disclosure Unit/Rheoli Data ac Uned Datgelu

South Wales Police HQ/Pencadlys yr Heddlu

Cowbridge Road/Heol y Bont-Faen

Bridgend/Penybont ar Ogwr

CF31 3SU

DD Telephone/Telliffon ********S31(1)(a)(b)

E-mail/E-bost: Freedomof.Information@south- wales.pnn.police.uk

- 39 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 December 2014 16:28 To: Freedom of Information Subject: RE: CRU 1976/14 - Advice on RIPA related FOI request

Bethan Think this was covered in our advice for CRU 1606/14 - Basically disclosable apart from Sec 23 (1) as indicated in red. Hope that assists

Regards Mark

Mark WISE Manager ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit E-mail: [email protected] Telephone : 0844 8929010 Mobile : ********S31(1)(a)(b) c/o ACRO PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

From: [email protected] [mailto:Freedomof.Information@south- wales.pnn.police.uk] Sent: 15 December 2014 09:53 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: RE: CRU 1976/14 - Advice on RIPA related FOI request

Good morning Mark,

The advice we have used which contains the word "forces should articulate" is now attached.

Kind regards,

Bethan Evans

Research and Data Quality Officer/Swyddog Ymchwil ac Ansawdd Data

Data Management Unit & Disclosure Unit/Rheoli Data ac Uned Datgelu

South Wales Police HQ/Pencadlys yr Heddlu

Cowbridge Road/Heol y Bont-Faen

Bridgend/Penybont ar Ogwr - 40 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. CF31 3SU

Internal/Mewnol: 26677

DD Telephone/Telliffon 01656 303444

E-mail/E-bost: [email protected]

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 December 2014 08:46 To: Freedom of Information Subject: RE: CRU 1976/14 - Advice on RIPA related FOI request

Michelle

With regard to the attached CRU E mail, then clearly you will need to apply Sec 40 redactions to any references to the applicants (********S40(2)/******S40(2)), however I would also suggest that the "generic" advice or "model" which you have used to compile your response and which contains the words "Forces should articulate" is also captured by the request.

Let me know which document that is and I will provide further comment with suggested redactions where appropriate. Regards Mark

Mark WISE Manager ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit E-mail: [email protected] Telephone : 0844 8929010 Mobile : ********S31(1)(a)(b) c/o ACRO PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

From: [email protected] [mailto:Freedomof.Information@south- wales.pnn.police.uk] Sent: 10 December 2014 14:33

- 41 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: CRU 1976/14 - Advice on RIPA related FOI request

Good Afternoon CRU,

With regard to our Freedom of Information Request Reference No. 996/14 which has been referred to you for advice, please find attached the CRU E mail (dated 6.10.2014) containing the Advice which was used to formulate the response to Request No. 771/14.

Another copy of the response to Request 771/14 is also attached for your reference.

Hope this assists,

Kind Regards

Michelle

Michelle MOUNTJOY 54017

Research and Data Quality Officer/Swyddog Ymchwil ac Ansawdd Data

Data Management and Disclosure Unit/Rheoli Data ac Uned Datgelu

South Wales Police HQ/Pencadlys yr Heddlu

Cowbridge Road/Heol y Bont Faen

Bridgend/Penybont ar Ogwr

CF31 3SU

DD/LIU: ********S31(1)(a)(b)Ext/Est: ********S31(1)(a)(b)

E‐Mail/E‐bost: ********S31(1)(a)(b)@south‐wales.pnn.police.uk

Visit our website: www.south‐wales.police.uk

Ewchi'n gwefarr: www.heddlu‐de‐cymru.police.uk

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 December 2014 12:07 To: Freedom of Information Subject: CRU 1976/14 - Advice on RIPA related FOI request

- 42 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Michelle

We have previously advised on a similar matter nationally in that generally we have no issues regarding the disclosure of our information, however I need to ascertain precisely what ACPO E mail is captured by the request that you have used in formulating your response.

It is likely that there will be reference to S ********S31(1)(a)(b) which will require redactions.

Thanks Mark

Mark WISE Manager ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit E-mail: [email protected] Telephone : 0844 8929010 Mobile : ********S31(1)(a)(b) c/o ACRO PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

- 43 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox

Sent: 06 January 2015 10:52

To: 'Freedom of Information'

Subject: Log No.1926/14 CRU Circulation (06/01/2015) - ********S40(2) - RIPA - Including Advice

Attachments: ADVG_ACPO CRU UPDATE - RIPA FOI REQUESTS _20141203_114016.RTF

Dear Andrea,

The following FOI request has been logged in the CRU - This request was also submitted to West Mercia on 14/11/14 with a clarification relating to journalists. Advice is at the end of the message.

Log Number:001926/14

Case worker:Mark Wise

Logged with:West Mercia Constabulary

Sent from: ********S40(2)

1. Can you tell me the total number of requests to use powers under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) have been made each year over the last five years for your force.

2. Can you also tell me the total number of times RIPA requests were approved, how many were rejected, and how many times it was used over the last five years at your force.

Clarified as all RIPA applications. Specifically, has RIPA been approved and used on journalists.

Kind regards

Shana Hart ACPO FOI National Referral Officer ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit Email: [email protected] Tel: 0844 892 9010 c/o P.O. Box 481, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 9FS

- 44 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

Date created: 19 January 2015 Caseworker: Heather Waller

Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 892 9010

National Advice Regarding CRU Case No 000054/15

City of London Police Greater Manchester Police

Hertfordshire Constabulary

Have received the below request submitted by ***************S40(2).

Your police force has rejected FoI requests from me on use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act on journalists. I have previously requested information over a number of years and the request has been rejected on cost grounds. In order to assist, I am now requesting information relating to specific cases. I hope this is helpful and you are now able to answer my request.

Between September 2011 and May 2012, City of London Police conducted 6 press leak investigations, according to information provided to HMIC. (https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/media/city-of-london-revisiting-police- relationships.pdf)

Q1: Please provide me with details of these 6 investigations into "inappropriate disclosure to the media" and state whether RIPA was used as part of the investigation.

Q2: If possible, could you also please say whether RIPA was used specifically to obtain the phone records/ telecoms data of journalists.

Please redact any information that needs to be redacted in order to answer this request.

CLARIFICATION: A brief one or two sentence description of what the purpose of the investigations were (redacted where needed).

REQUEST TO HERTFORDSHIRE:

Your police force has rejected FoI requests from me on use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act on journalists. I have previously requested information over a number of years and the request has been rejected on cost grounds. In order to assist, I am now requesting information relating to a specific case. I hope this is helpful and you are now able to answer my request.

Did Hertfordshire Police use RIPA to investigate the leaking of information by PCSO Emma Smiter to INS News Agency, as reported here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-

- 45 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. 12764261?

If possible, could you also please say whether RIPA was used specifically to obtain the phone records/ telecoms data of journalists.

Please redact any information that needs to be redacted in order to answer this request.

The advice from a national perspective is:

Background to this Request

We presume the forces who have received this latest request previously issued Section 12 refusal notices to ********S40(2) RIPA requests. The advice has been compiled with that in mind and a brief précis of each request to individual forces is provided below.

City of London Police

The request focuses on six press leaks that occurred and are formally acknowledged within the HMIC Revisiting Police Relationships: progress report for City of London Police dated December 2012.

Hertfordshire Police

The link provided within their request is purely journalistic reporting following the ‘window of opportunity’ at judicial proceedings. The publication is not a formal acknowledgement from Hertfordshire Constabulary.

Greater Manchester Police

Greater Manchester Police has not provided any background information, however having researched the internet we presume the press leak ********S40(2) is referring to can be found within the below Daily Mail news article which provides detail of a former police call handler who was accused of leaking information during the hunt for Dale Cregan, see below link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523376/Police-handler-told-cop-killer-Dale- Cregans-family-grassed-up.html

This link is not a formal acknowledgement from Greater Manchester Police and is just media speculation and rumour following the ‘window of opportunity’ during judicial proceedings.

The below link appears to have a quote from Greater Manchester Police regarding ********S40(2)appealing against his dismissal from the force but again this link does not provide formal acknowledgement: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2627066/999-call-handler-sacked-sharing- identity-neighbour-tipped-detectives-hunt-one-eyed-murderer-Dale-Cregan-killed-two- female-police-officers.html

- 46 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

Responding to this Request

We would suggest all forces engage with their media department to ascertain whether any formal acknowledgements relating to the press leaks have been placed into the public domain. This information would be recorded within a formal media quote released by each force and it is that document which would contain the information which is the formal acknowledgement not the link provided by the news agency.

Detailed below are three options on how to respond:

Option 1

Dependent on how you store information cost may be relevant for this latest request. If cost is a factor for you, when issuing your Section 12 refusal notice we would suggest you invite the applicant to refine their request if feasible to do so.

Option 2

For any force that holds a media release this document can be shared with the applicant.

Irrespective of whether any other information is or isn’t held by a force, as this request is asking for information which falls under Part 1 Chapter I of RIPA, inasmuch as it is asking for information relating to interception of communications, an example of this would be tapping a telephone or opening a person’s mail; this request will also require a partial neither confirm nor deny response by virtue of Section 23(5) Information supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies; Section 24(2) National Security; Section 30(3) Investigations; Section 31(1) Law Enforcement and Section 40(5) Personal Information. In addition, due to the legal constraints of under Chapter 1 of part 1 of RIPA legislation, Section 44(2) Prohibitions on Disclosure is also relevant for this partial NCND, as it is a criminal offence for any unauthorised disclosure.

Option 3

If your force has not provided any formal acknowledgement relating to press leaks this request will require a full neither confirm nor deny stance by virtue the exemptions quoted within option 2.

**** All forces to read ****

As cost was relevant for all previous RIPA requests submitted by ********S40(2)the recommended Section 14(1) warning notice wouldn’t have been included within your cost refusals. If either option 2 or 3 are relevant for your force we would suggest you include the 14(1) warning notice at this stage.

Form of words for the partial NCND – if the full NCND is required please ensure you tweak the words before as it is worded for a partial NCND. In addition please ensure any local issues that may impact the appropriateness of the NCND are included within the form of words.

- 47 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

Form of words which can be communicated to applicant

Section 44(2) Prohibitions on Disclosure

Section 40(5) Personal Information

Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;

Section 24(2) National Security;

Section 30(3) Investigations;

Section 31(3) Law enforcement;

This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

Sections 44, 40 and 23 are absolute exemptions, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release. In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.

Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption which means the public interest must be considered.

Harm in Confirming or Denying Information is Held

- 48 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. identification of individuals, the possibility of revealing involvement of any exempt bodies and the risk in undermining National Security. To confirm or deny whether RIPA was used as part of an investigation into inappropriate disclosures of information to the media; as well as confirming whether RIPA was used to acquire communications and telecom data from individuals working as journalists, would be completely inappropriate. The rationale is that any confirmation or denial of any other information being held relating to the specific press leak cases would provide awareness to offenders which would help subjects avoid detection, and inhibit the prevention and detection of crime. This would lead to the identification of individuals involved in specific cases and present a real risk of identifying the resources available to individual departments to covertly monitor groups or individuals, which may include journalists, who are suspected of committed these types of offences.

It is important that the Police Service discloses information regarding surveillance activity under RIPA where it is appropriate to do so but some authority information or specific covert law enforcement techniques are not disclosed for the above reasons. To do so would disclose tactical information to the detriment of those actual techniques. In any case due to the legal constraints under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the RIPA legislation (interceptions) it may actually be a criminal offence to do so (under Section 19).

Since 2006, the UK Government have published the threat level, based upon current intelligence. As of today’s date (19th January 2015) the current threat level from international terrorism for the UK is assessed as Severe, see below link: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/threat-levels.html

The Police Service is committed to demonstrating proportionality and accountability regarding surveillance techniques to the appropriate authorities. However, if the Police Service were to either confirm or deny that any other information exists, other covert surveillance tactics will either be compromised or significantly weakened. If the Police Service denies a tactic is used in one request but then exempts for another, requesters can determine the ‘exempt’ answer is in fact a technique used in policing. The impact could undermine national security, any on-going investigations and any future investigations, as it would enable targeted individuals/groups to become surveillance aware. This would help subjects avoid detection, and inhibit the prevention and detection of crime.

- 49 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built and the police have a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those responsible for committing crime or those that plan to commit crime. To do this the police require evidence and that evidence can come from a number of sources, some of which is obtained through covert means. Having obtained sufficient evidence offenders are charged with offences and placed before the courts. By confirming or denying that any other information pertinent to this request exists could directly influence the stages of that process, and jeopardise current investigations or prejudice law enforcement.

Public Interest Considerations

Section 24 Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that any other information is held Security measures are put in place to protect the community that we serve. As evidenced within the harm to confirm detail of specific types of RIPA applications would reveal covert investigative activity that may or may not have taken place and would highlight to terrorists and individuals intent on carrying out criminal behaviour, covert policing activity. This would ultimately increase the risk of harm to the general public and significantly undermine any ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the United Kingdom and increase the risk of harm to the public.

Irrespective of what other information is or isn’t held in this case, the public entrust the Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety and protection and the only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with what is placed into the public domain.

The cumulative effect of terrorists gathering information from various sources - 50 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. would be even more impactive when linked to other information gathered from various sources about terrorism. The more information disclosed over time will give a more detailed account of the tactical infrastructure of not only a force area but also the country as a whole.

Any incident that results from such a disclosure would by default affect National Security.

To confirm or deny whether (force name) hold any other information pertinent to this request would allow inferences to be made about the nature and extent of national security related activities which may or may not take place in a given area. This could enable a terrorist group(s) to take steps to avoid detection, and as such, confirmation or denial would be damaging to National Security.

Section 30

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held Confirming or denying whether any other information exists relevant to this request would lead to a better informed public improving their knowledge and understanding of how the Police Service adhere to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for specific cases and the interception of communications and the acquisition and disclosure of communisations data under Part 1 Charter 1 of RIPA generally.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that information is held

By its very nature, information held relating to covert policing and tactics is sensitive in nature. Under FOI there is a requirement to comply with Section 1(1)(a) and confirm what information is held. In some cases it is that confirmation, or not, which could disclose facts harmful to covert policing and in such cases (force name) takes advantage of its ability under FOI legislation, to, where appropriate, neither confirm or deny that any other information relating to the request, is or is not held. The Police Service will never disclose information which could identify investigative activity and therefore undermine their investigations. To do so would hinder the prevention or detection of crime.

- 51 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) – confirming information is held

By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the request exists, would lead to better public awareness into the intricacies of RIPA legislation and applications submitted under Part 1 Chapter 1 of RIPA. This may lead to more information (intelligence) being submitted from the public which may culminate in a reduction of crime

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that information is held

Balancing Test

The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge whether any other information is or is not held if to do so could undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.

None of the above can be viewed as an inference that any other information does or does not exist.

- 52 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

In addition, as detailed above, this request will require a inclusion of a Section 14(1) Warning Notice.

Form of words

In response to your Freedom of Information request dated xxxxx (insert date) xxxxxxxxx (insert name of force) I would like to point out the following.

The Freedom of Information Act is a piece of legislation which quite rightly opens up public authorities to greater scrutiny and accountability.

Under the provision of the Act an authority must process a request in writing from a named applicant under the terms and conditions of the legislation. Whilst giving maximum support to individuals genuinely seeking to exercise the right to know, the Commissioner’s general approach will be sympathetic towards authorities where requests can be characterised as being part of a campaign. Therefore with regard to this request we are including a warning under Section 14(1) (Vexatious Request) of the Freedom of Information Act that any future requests may attract this exemption.

If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.

- 53 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 09 February 2015 17:35 To: 'Williams, Caroline' Subject: RE: FOI 694.2014-15 [PROTECT PRIVATE]

Caroline

Confirmation that the advice in respect of this particular request remains. Since the publication of the report, he has again submitted further requests which we are currently analysing but that will not impact on your current approach as this pre-dates your request.

Hope that assists. Regards

Mark Mark WISE Manager National Police FOI & DP CRU E-mail: [email protected] Telephone : 0844 8929010 Mobile : ******S31(1)(a)b) c/o ACRO PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

From: Williams, Caroline [mailto: ******S31(1)(a)(b) @northyorkshire.pnn.police.uk] Sent: 06 February 2015 15:43 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: FOI 694.2014-15 [PROTECT PRIVATE]

Classification: PROTECT

Good afternoon,

The applicant to this FOI has requested an internal review to his response sent 08 January 2015. CRU advice was received for this FOI request as above.

Can you confirm that the advice you provided still stands so I can continue with his review. I have also attached a copy of our original response.

Kind regards

Caroline Williams

Collar number 5982

Legal Officer (Civil Disclosure)

Joint Corporate Legal Services - 54 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. North Yorkshire Police

Committed to the Code of Ethics

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number

If using my collar number please state each number individually

Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk

Facebook: facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice

Twitter: twitter.com/NYorksPolice www.northyorkshire.police.uk 694.2014-15 Response.pdf CRU advice.doc [Classification=PROTECT] PROTECT

- 55 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

Date created: 17 February 2015 Caseworker: Heather Waller

Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 892 9010

National Advice Regarding CRU Case No 000225/15

Hampshire Constabulary

Avon & Somerset Constabulary Hertfordshire Constabulary

Bedfordshire Police Humberside Police

Cambridgeshire Constabulary Kent Police

Cheshire Constabulary Lancashire Constabulary

City of London Police Lincolnshire Police

Cleveland Police Merseyside Police

Cumbria Constabulary Metropolitan Police

Cumbria Constabulary North Wales Police

Derbyshire Constabulary North Yorkshire Police

Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Northamptonshire Police

Dorset Police Northumbria Police

Durham Constabulary Nottinghamshire Police

Durham Constabulary PSNI

Dyfed Powys Police South Wales Police

Essex Police South Yorkshire Police

Gloucestershire Constabulary Suffolk Constabulary

Greater Manchester Police Sussex Police

Gwent Police Thames Valley Police

Gwent Police Warwickshire Police

- 56 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. West Mercia Constabulary West Yorkshire Police

West Midlands Police Wiltshire Constabulary have received the below request submitted by ******S40(2).

1) The number of registered sex offenders in your force area whose whereabouts are unknown?

2) When each missing registered sex offender went missing?

3) The MAPPA category each missing sex offender is managed at?

4) The name of each registered sex offender whose whereabouts is unknown?

5) The total number of registered sex offenders in your force area?

6) How many registered sex offenders in your force area are managed at MAPPA category 1, 2 and 3?

CLARIFICATION TO DYFED POWYS:

Just to provide an update, the applicant has today clarified with Dyfed Powys Police that in relation to Question 6, the question should read "How many registered sex offenders in your force area are managed at MAPPA Level 1, 2 and 3, rather than Category 1,2 and 3 – this is because the question doesn’t make sense as it stands due to the fact that Category 1 is a sex offender.

The advice from a national perspective is:

The below advice is subject to individual force analysis that ALL of the information can be retrieved within the FOI cost threshold.

Question 1

The number of registered sex offenders missing on any particular date is not recorded within the latest MAPPA report in detail but has been disclosed under FOI previously with a specified caveat, detailed below:

'In relation to the number of registered sexual offenders whose whereabouts are unknown, (XXX insert force name), has as of the date of your request (xxx insert number, even if 0) RSOs currently recorded as wanted because their whereabouts are unknown. This total is only valid for the date in question because the information is dynamic and will change as arrests are made or new cases come to light through proactive intelligence led policing or routine visits to registered offenders'.

- 57 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Questions 2, 3 & 4

If the data provided within question 1 is ‘zero’, then ‘not applicable because the information within questions 1 is zero’ can be communicated to the applicant. If the data released was a positive number you will need to locally assess the information captured by this question to ascertain whether there is any information that has been routinely published on websites such as that detailed within the below links: http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/campaigns/most-wanted-hub/most-wanted- listings?start=16 and https://crimestoppers-uk.org/most-wanted/?Page=1

The information may also be contained on your force website, Twitter or Facebook for individuals who are still currently missing and there would be no issues with the disclosure of the information at this time, as it is still fair to publish their details into the public domain if a decision had been made to do so previously and the link can be provided to the applicant.

However, for any information captured which isn’t in the public domain Section 40(2) Personal Information and Section 31(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement should be considered.

Questions 5 & 6

This information is contained within the annual MAPPA reports and the applicant can be directed to the relevant link. If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.

- 58 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 24 February 2015 12:08 To: 'Freedom of Information Team' Subject: RE: Advice for CRU Ref: 278/15 - ******S40(2)

Jeff

We would prefer that you do rely on Section 14(1) as per the advice which states that 'To a certain extent it is also irrelevant what information you do hold, as S14 is a consideration prior to any decision making thoughts on actual disclosure'. The series of requests on this subject have placed a considerable burden on the service. Therefore any force choosing not to apply S14 should be mindful that to do so would undermine the approach taken by others.

Please contact the CRU if you would like to discuss this further.

Regards

Mrs Alex Cousins FOI National Referral Officer and Trainer ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit Email: [email protected] Tel: 0844 892 9010 c/o P.O. Box 481, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 9FS

From: Freedom of Information Team [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 February 2015 11:26 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: RE: Advice for CRU Ref: 278/15 - ******S40(2)

Morning Claire,

Thanks for the advice. Here in North Wales we ******S31(1)(a)(b) in the time parameters they requested. Therefore, *********************************S31(1)(a)(b).

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thank

Jeff Cody

Ymchwilydd Rhyddid Gwybodaeth/Freedom of Information Researcher

Uned Rhyddid Gwybodaeth/Freedom of Information Unit

Prif Swyddog Gwybodaeth/ Chief Information Officer

- 59 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Gwasanaethau Corfforaethol/Corporate Services

Ffôn /Phone *********S31(1)(a)(b)

Est/ Ext *********S31(1)(a)(b)

E.bost/ E.mail *********S31(1)(a)(b)@nthwales.pnn.police.uk

- 60 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 03 March 2015 11:32 To: '[email protected]' Subject: CASE NO 355/15 FW: CRU FOI Referral FOI103

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Attachments: Response FOI103.doc; CRU FOI Referral FOI103.doc

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU Alice Thank you for referring this request to us, it has been logged, case no 355/15 refers. All future requests relating to RIPA/Journalists will attract the Section 14 vexatious, unless cost is relevant. In this case we see Section 12 is cited therefore we are happy for you to issue the refusal. Regards Heather Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer National Police FOI and DP CRU email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

From: ********S40(2)@Herts.pnn.police.uk [mailto: ********S40(2)@Herts.pnn.police.uk] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 02 March 2015 13:19

- 61 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: CRU FOI Referral FOI103

Good afternoon

Please find attached a late referral to a RIPA request from a local journalist.

I have drafted a response for your attention, please could you advise if I can send it – my deadline is tomorrow 03.03.15

Kind Regards

Alice

- 62 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 03 March 2015 11:27 To: '********S31(1)(a)(b)@met.pnn.police.uk' Subject: FW: CRU 273/15_********S40(2)_RIPA and Journalist_IR

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Attachments: CRU Referral_STAINES.doc Mike Thank you for advising us that the applicant has requested an internal review into his request which asked for RIPA/journalist information. The CRU stand by our original advice inasmuch as Section 14(1) is still relevant for these requests. Please could you let us know the outcome of your IR. Many thanks Regards Heather Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer National Police FOI and DP CRU email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

From: ********S31(1)(a)(b)@met.pnn.police.uk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 March 2015 11:04 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: MPS: CRU 273/15_********S40(2)_RIPA and Journalist_IR

Dear ACPO, please find request for review from ********S40(2) (Sun Newspaper) re RIPA enquiry on a mobile number provided by him - MPS deemed vexatious Regards Mike

- 63 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

- 64 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 05 March 2015 15:06 To: 'Freedom of Information' Subject: RE: Advice for CRU Ref: 278/15 - *********S40(2). ~[RESTRICTED]~

John Thank you for sending through your thoughts about this request and the fact you ****************************************S31(1)(a)(b)*********S40(2).on this subject. As stated in the advice the Section 14 aspect is in relation to all requests asking for RIPA information that relates to journalists. The reason for this rationale is because of the burden these requests, which are of a sensitive nature, are having on the Police Service as a whole. Although this applicant hasn't previously submitted this request to Cheshire our advice is for practitioners to consider the impact all requests of this type are having, hence our recommendation for Section 14(1) to be considered. As you know it is not individuals that can be made vexatious, only the requests. hence are wide ranging rationale. If we went down the road of looking at the history, what would be the point in making *********S40(2). vexatious, if he can just get someone else to make the same request? I hope this helps, however if you wish to discuss further please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards Heather Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer National Police FOI and DP CRU email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

From: John Gannon [mailto: *********S40(2)[email protected]] On Behalf Of Freedom of Information Sent: 03 March 2015 16:21

- 65 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: RE: Advice for CRU Ref: 278/15 - *********S40(2). ~[RESTRICTED]~

Shana,

Thanks, it can wait until Heather is back

Regards

John

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 March 2015 16:03 To: Freedom of Information Subject: RE: Advice for CRU Ref: 278/15 - *********S40(2). ~[RESTRICTED]~

Dear John

Thank you for your e-mail. Unfortunately Heather is not in the office until Thursday, are you ok to wait for her return or would you like another officer to see if they can assist?

Kind regards Shana Hart FOI National Referral Officer National Police FOI and DP CRU Email: [email protected] Tel: 0844 892 9010 c/o P.O. Box 481, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 9FS

From: John Gannon [mailto: *********S40(2)[email protected]] On Behalf Of Freedom of Information Sent: 03 March 2015 15:02 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: RE: Advice for CRU Ref: 278/15 - ********S40(2) ~[RESTRICTED]~

Colleagues,

I’m having a little difficulty in the rationale for applying S14 to this particular request from the BBC. Although I fully understand the reasons when applied to the *********S40(2). request, which is one of a series about the same subject, this one off *********S40(2). is a one off, i.e. ********************************************************************** ************************S31(1)(a)(b).

- 66 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Looking at the question. She asks for a copy of the response to the IOCCO request for full details of all investigations that have used Part I Chapter 2 RIPA powers to acquire communications data to identify journalistic sources. ********************************************************************** ***********************************************************S31(1)(a)(b).

How does the CRU view the use of NCND Section 30(3) ? Would this be ‘breaking ranks’ and expose other forces stance or any weaknesses?

I would appreciate your additional views…or just humour me

Regards

John Gannon

Information Compliance

Professional Standards Department

Tel: *********S31(1)(a)(b).

______

Cheshire Constabulary HQ

Winsford

Cheshire

CW7 2UA

- 67 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox

Sent: 06 March 2015 14:50

To: 'Met FOI Mailbox ([email protected])'

Cc: '********S40(2)@met.pnn.police.uk'

Subject: Log No.361/15 CRU Circulation (03/03/2015) - ********S40(2)Phone Records - Including Advice

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Attachments: ********S40(2)costs notice.doc; 0001_CRU ADVICE_20150217_084203.DOC

Dear Peter/James

The following FOI request has been logged in the CRU today - Advice is at the end of the message.

Log Number:000361/15

Case worker:Heather Waller

Logged with:Metropolitan Police

Sent from: ********S40(2)

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) of 2000, from 1st January 2001 to 31st December 2014, how many times has the MPS acquired the phone records of the following:

1. Civil servants including government special advisers

2. Journalists

Advice:

As with previous requests asking for information on RIPA and journalists, if cost isn't relevant our advice is that forces should consider Section 14(1), as detailed fully in the advice for 228/15, which I have attached for your information and assistance.

In this case you have advised that cost is a factor and we are happy for you to respond in that way.

Regards

Heather

- 68 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Dear Ms Raymond

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015030000055

I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/02/2015. I note you seek access to the following information:

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) of 2000, from 1st January 2001 to 31st December 2014, how many times has the MPS acquired the phone records of the following:

1. Civil servants including government special advisers

2. Journalists

This email is to inform you that it will not be possible to respond to your request within the cost threshold.

The system used to record RIPA applications for communications data has no way of searching automatically for the individuals profession. Therefore the only possible solution would be to manually review all RIPA applications made within the specified time period.

We estimate that the cost of complying with this request would exceed 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 locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), this email acts as a Refusal Notice.

Section 17(5) of the Act provides:

(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.

Section 12(1) of the Act provides:

(1) Section 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.

Section 16 of the Act provides:

(1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.

(2) Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or assistance in any case, conforms with the code of practice under section 45 is to be taken to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to that case.

- 69 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Under Section 16 of the Act (duty to assist), an authority is required to offer an applicant the opportunity to redefine their request within the cost limit. Unfortunately due to the rationale noted above, I am unable to suggest any practical way in which your request may be modified in order to bring it within the 18 hours stipulated by the Regulations.

NB A public authority is not obliged to assist an applicant in redefining a request to within the time/cost limit, if there is no probability of achieving this.

This was confirmed in Decision Notice 50194062.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please email quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

James Young

SC&O Information Manager

- 70 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 23 March 2015 12:11 Subject: CASE NO 278/15 - INTERNAL REVIEW ADVICE - *********S40(2) - IOCCO REPORT

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear All Several forces have advised us that the applicant has submitted an internal review to them following the Section 14(1) refusal: 1. A copy of all the information provided by your police force to the IOCCO in response to the Interception of Communications Commissioner's request. INTERNAL REVIEW ADVICE The CRU stand by our original advice, which was prepared in line with stakeholders' guidance, that Section 14(1) Vexatious is still relevant to any requests asking for information relating to the use of RIPA and journalists. This request specifically asks individual forces for a copy of all information provided to the IOCCO, which was provided to assist in the their inquiry into the use of Charter 2 of Part 1 of RIPA to identify journalistic sources hence the rationale for the Section 14(1) refusal. Although the applicant clearly articulates why she feels her request shouldn't be subject to a vexatious notice, the original advice contains clear and concise reasoning as to why Section 14(1) is relevant for all RIPA/journalistic requests irrespective of whether an individual has submitted a previous request or not, as Section 14 only ever relates to a request and not an individual applicant. If any forces intends to differ from our advice please come back to us before responding so that we are able to consult with stakeholders. For information purposes we are aware of a recent publication on the BBC news website, see below link:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31932728 What should be made clear is that Merseyside have not ruled out applying S14, they have simply extended the request, therefore that comment at the end is slightly inaccurate.

- 71 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Regards Heather Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer National Police FOI and DP CRU email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

- 72 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 25 March 2015 12:18 To: '********S31(1)(a)(b)@met.pnn.police.uk' Subject: FW: CRU 278/15_********S40(2) (BBC)_IOCCO RIPA inquiry_Review draft

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Attachments: ********S40(2)_2015030001806_draft.doc Mike Thank you for sending a copy of your draft internal review response to us. We note you are upholding the original Section 14(1) stance and have no further comments other than it is very well articulated. Regards Heather Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer National Police FOI and DP CRU email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

From: ********S31(1)(a)(b)@met.pnn.police.uk [mailto: ********S31(1)(a)(b) @met.pnn.police.uk] Sent: 24 March 2015 15:23 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Cc: ********S31(1)(a)(b)@met.police.uk; ********S31(1)(a)(b)@met.pnn.police.uk; ********S31(1)(a)(b)@met.pnn.police.uk; ********S31(1)(a)(b)@met.pnn.police.uk; ********S31(1)(a)(b)@met.pnn.police.uk Subject: MPS: CRU 278/15_********S40(2) (BBC)_IOCCO RIPA inquiry_Review draft

Dear ACPO and Stakeholders, please find review decision to uphold original SC&O response to deem the request as vexatious for all the information provided by the MPS to the IOCCO request - for any comment

Regards Mike

- 73 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

Address Public Access Office, PO Box 57192, London, SW6 1SF

Protective Marking: Protectively Marked

Not / Suitable for Publication: N

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 Public Access Office - 783500.

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). Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer National Police FOI and DP CRU email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

- 74 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.

From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 27 March 2015 15:26 To: ' ([email protected])' Subject: CASE NO 458/15 - ********S40(2) - RIPA/JOURNALISTS - RESULT ADVICE

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear All With reference to the below request which you referred to us for guidance, having been submitted by ********S40(2): This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the following:

1) Please provide a yes or no answer to this question: Has Essex Police at any time in the last three years used RIPA powers to obtain any journalist’s phone records?

2) If the answer to the above was yes, please provide a number of journalists whose phone records were obtained, for each year in which this happened.

3) If the answer to question 1 was yes, then for each individual instance in which this occurred, please tell me the month and year, the specific reason police wanted the journalist’s phone records, whether the journalist was arrested, and whether the investigation resulted in any charges being filed against the journalist or any other party (please specify whether it was the journalist or another party).

4) Please supply copies of all correspondence between Essex Police and the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office in relation to its inquiry into police use of RIPA to find journalistic sources.

Please redact any information which could identify individuals who should be protected by the Data Protection Act, but make sure that other details are not redacted. If you deem that particular things I have asked for should be withheld, for instance under the Data Protection Act, please withhold that information but supply everything else I have asked for.

When responding to the applicant we suggest practitioners clearly articulate that the motive and history of these types of requests have been considered and deemed a valid point for citing Section 14(1).

- 75 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE

POLICE EYES ONLY.

Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. *** As always the decision as to whether Section 14(1) is engaged is a decision for the public authority that has received the request, however if you decide not to cite this exemption can you please let us know prior to responding. ***

I have provided below the generic advice to case no 228/15 for your information and assistance. Regards Heather Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer National Police FOI and DP CRU email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS

- 76 –

PROTECT – PRIVATE