PROTECT – PRIVATE POLICE EYES ONLY. Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. PROTECT – PRIVATE ) Date created: 27 January 2015 Caseworker: Heather Waller Email: [email protected]Telephone: 0844 892 9010 National Advice Regarding CRU Case No 000088/15 Gwent Police Humberside Police Lancashire Constabulary Metropolitan Police Norfolk Constabulary Northamptonshire Police have received the below request submitted by ************S40. MPS REQUEST: Can you please tell me whether each of these numbers has had call data obtained by the Metropolitan Police under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Please note, these are general news organisation switchboard numbers, do not belong to individuals and could be used to contact hundreds of people each. ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ *********** ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ S31 If call data has been obtained from any of these numbers please confirm which ones. I don’t not require further details. NORTHAMPTONSHIRE REQUEST: Can you please tell me how many times since January 2011 Northamptonshire Police has obtained telecommunications data/ call records under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act for the following numbers: - 1 – 1 IC v Devon County Council and Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC
Transcript
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE )
Date created: 27 January 2015 Caseworker: Heather Waller
have received the below request submitted by ************S40.
MPS REQUEST:
Can you please tell me whether each of these numbers has had call data obtained by the Metropolitan Police under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Please note, these are general news organisation switchboard numbers, do not belong to individuals and could be used to contact hundreds of people each.
************
************
************
************
************
***********
************
************
************
************
************
************
S31
If call data has been obtained from any of these numbers please confirm which ones. I don’t not require further details.
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE REQUEST:
Can you please tell me how many times since January 2011 Northamptonshire Police has obtained telecommunications data/ call records under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act for the following numbers:
- 1 –
1 IC v Devon County Council and Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 2 –
************S31
Please note, these are switchboard numbers of newspapers in your area and are not those of individual journalists.
The advice from a national perspective is:
As forces are aware there has been a long history of requests submitted by this applicant which ask for information surrounding the use of RIPA authorities/authorisations and whether they involved journalists, together with a request for production orders that led to the stored communications of a journalist/news organisation being accessed by the force. Our records show that he has submitted 14 requests to forces since 11th September 2015.
I have provided a brief précis of all relevant requests submitted by ************S40 for information purposes:
Case No Précis of Request CRU advice
1440/14
National
RIPA - Telephone records of journalists and news organisations
Full NCND by virtue of 23(5); 24(2); 30(3); 31(3) and 40(5).
Internal Review requested forces advised to adhere to original stance.
1496/14
MPS only
RIPA – Telephone records of journalists, reporter, editor (named newspapers and individuals)
Full NCND by virtue of 23(5); 24(2); 30(3); 31(3) and 40(5).
Section 12 refusal issued.
1606/14
National
All email correspondence between police staff in all departments and other in which RIPA case no 1440/14 was discussed (metadata request)
If Section 12 not relevant, a thorough local assessment Section 30(1)(a); OR 31(1)(a)(b) and 40(2) and all forces include partial 23(1) NCND
1608/14
National
RIPA – breakdown of RIPA applications between 2000 and 2014.
Aggregation considered for all previous RIPA requests. Q1&2 all RIPA application data forces can disclose as a TOTAL only. Partial NCND also included 23(5); 44(2); 24(2); 30(3); 31(3).
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 3 –
1629/14
Devon and Cornwall only
Individuals telecoms record obtained by D&C under RIPA as part of Op Reproof
Aggregate with previous requests Section 21 and partial NCND 23(5); 24(2); 30(3); 31(3); 40(5) together with S14(1) warning notice.
1631/14
National
Whether RIPA was used for press leak inquiries
Aggregate with previous requests. Section 12 likely to be relevant. Total number of RIPA applications for ten year period can bee provided and partial NCND 23(5); 44(2); 24(2); 30(3); 31(30 and 40(5) together with Section 14(1) warning notice.
1683/14
National
Production orders led to stored communications of a journalist or news organisation being access by the force together with named journalist or news organisation.
Local assessment for Sections 31(1)(a) OR 31(1)(a)(b) and 40(2) and partial 23(5) NCND.
1690/14 RIPA – journalist/news organisation
1775/14 Phone Records of Daily telephone and/or Mr Winnett were obtained by MPS under RIPA.
Full NCND 40(5).
1822/14 Journalists telecom records obtained by MPS under named operations under RIPA together with other questions.
Aggregate with previous. Section 22 and 30(1)(a) and 40(2) for question 6. Some information already in public domain.
1866/14
Refined request to 1440/14. Aggregate with previous. Full NCND by virtue of 23(5); 24(2); 30(3); 31(3) and 40(5).
Internal review submitted to some forces CRU advise stand by original stance.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 4 –
1874/14
Northants; Notts; North Yorkshire
Information provided by named force to IOCCO as part of his recent request for information on the use of RIPA to find journalists sources.
If forces unable to locate/retrieve/submit any data as part of IOCCO inquiry for can respond no info held. In order for 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. Those forces who were able to identify that they do not actually hold information exempt 22; 30(1)(a); 31(1)(a)(b) plus NCND in line with 1440/14 response.
1982/14
National
Prevention of Harassment Orders issued to journalist/news/media organisation employee
Initial advice section 12 or potentially Section 14(1) overly burdensome. Further advice to forces who were able to retrieve within cost local assessment Section 40(2) 30(1)(a) OR 31(1)(a)(b)
54/14
Cityof London; Hertfordshire; GMP;West Mids
RIPA Powers and Journalists/press leaks Section 12 or if formal acknowledgement within public domain share with applicant and provide partial NCND 23(5); 24(2); 30(3); 31(3); 40(5) and 44(2). For forces where no formal acknowledgement full NCND. Advised for forces who haven’t issued Section 14(1) warning to include within this response.
Section 14(1)
As you are no doubt aware any requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act should be dealt with on an ‘applicant blind’ basis. The Information Commissioner’s Office publish on their website Good Practice Guidance No 6 which focuses on ‘Consideration of requests without reference to the identity of the applicant or the reasons for the request, see below link, 2nd paragraph click on link within final
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
‘ There is no specific reference in the FOIA or the EIR to the principle that the identity of the requester should be ignored, but it is in the absence of references in the legislation to the identity of the applicant from which the general principle is drawn. It is an approach endorsed by the Information Tribunal.
“FOIA is, however, applicant and motive blind. It is about disclosure to the public, and public interests. It is not about specified individuals or private interests.”
Any request has to be considered on the basis that it could have been made by any person; the identity of that person is immaterial when deciding whether or not to release information, unless there is reason to think that any of the matters below need to be taken into account.
a) whether the request is vexatious or repeated
b) Where the applicant requests their own personal information
c) For purposes of aggregation of costs under the fees regulations.
In this case forces can take the history of the applicant into account when considering and assessing requests, as per the Information Commissioner’s Guidance for dealing with vexatious requests, see below link:
The ICO guidance also focuses on requests that are patently vexatious, for example the tone or content of the request might be so objectionable that it would be unreasonable to expect the authority to tolerate it. That being said, sometimes it is unsure whether an authority has sufficient grounds to refuse the request and if this is the case the key questions which should be considered is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.
In order to ascertain this, practitioners are required to weigh the evidence about the impact on the authority and balancing this against the purpose and value of the request. Where relevant the authority will also need to take into account wider factors such as the background and history of the request.
Responding to this Request
The Freedom of information Act is a piece of legislation designed to give the public access to information held by public authorities. It exists to make the decisions of those authorities transparent and to keep the populace better informed regarding matters which affect them.
Due to the obvious high interest in policing activity, the Police Service attracts large volumes of requests which place huge pressures on smaller teams of individuals charged with ensuring lawful compliance with FOI. Commonsense dictates that we have to use those resources wisely, and principles have been established within the judicial framework of the legislation¹ to protect authorities when requests are a burden on
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 6 –
its staff, have no serious purpose or value or harass and/or distress staff. It is vital that the motives of the requestor are taken into account when considering these issues.
The crux of any request where Section 14(1) is being considered is before going on to assess whether a request is vexatious, public authorities should first consider whether there are any viable alternatives to dealing with the request under Section 14(1).
It is also important to remember that Section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself, and not the individual who submits it. An authority cannot refuse a request on the grounds that the requestor himself is vexatious. Similarly, an authority cannot simply refuse a new request solely on the basis that it has classified previous requests from the same individual as vexatious.
When identifying potentially vexatious requests the indicators contained within the Information Commissioner’s guidance on Section 14(1) should be considered. In this case we feel forces should look at the following indicators –
Unreasonable persistence
The applicant has submitted a vast amount of requests along the same theme and received responses to the requests. Further requests were submitted to forces by the applicant and the forces responded along the same lines and included a Section 14(1) warning with regard to any future RIPA requests the applicant submits are likely to be considered vexatious. He still submits requests for the same information. It appears the applicant is obviously reopening this issue which has been comprehensively addressed by police forces.
Frequent or overlapping requests
Since September last year the applicant has submitted frequent requests relating to the same issue, i.e. RIPA authorities and authorisations and production orders involving journalists/news organisations.
Futile requests
The applicant is a journalist himself and it appears has taken it upon himself to obtain as much information as possible under the Freedom of Information Act relating to authorisations and authorities under RIPA that have been used to obtain telecoms or surveillance information relating to journalists.
Forces have responded several times by neither confirm nor denying that information is held, which is the agreed stance with all relevant business and stakeholders who have an interest in this subject. In some cases it is a criminal offence to disclose any information under Section 19 of the RIPA legislation.
As stated within the original FOI requests to ************S40, the Office of Surveillance Commissioner and Interception of Communications Commissioner both oversee different parts of RIPA legislation, report to the Prime Minister and publish statistical information within their annual reports. This in itself answers any public interest considerations with regard to the monitoring of RIPA and publication of statistical data.
Looking at all the indicators above the CRU feel Section 14(1) would be relevant in this case, however this is only advice and ultimately the application of any Section 14(1) Official Notice is at the discretion of
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 7 –
the public authority who received the request.
*** Any force choosing not to cite Section 14(1) is invited to discuss it with us, so we can ensure that a corporate interpretation is being applied, even if that results in different responses ***
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
Date created: 02 February 2015 Caseworker: Heather Waller
Police Service of Scotland has received the below request submitted by ************S40.
Q1: Using the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, I would like to know how many requests for "metadata" were made by Police Scotland to service providers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act during the month of September 2014.
Q2: Please detail how many requests were made for each of the following: phone calls, texts, e-mail and social media messages and who the requests were made to.
The advice from a national perspective is:
Background to this Request
Metadata is data that describes other data, as in describing the origin, structure, or characteristics of computer files, webpages, databases, or other digital resources.
Having assessed the request the CRU interprets it to be asking for the number of requests by Police Scotland to service providers under RIPSA during the month of September 2014. The applicant’s meaning of ‘metadata’ is the information that is captured within each request by Police Scotland for acquisition of communications data under RIPSA as a whole.
Having confirmed with Police Service of Scotland any requests for acquisition of communications data is dealt with under RIPA legislation. When responding we suggest you make the applicant aware of this.
Responding to this Request
This request relates to the acquisition and disclosure of communications data (information from communications service providers relating to communications) which falls under Part 1 Chapter 2 of RIPA legislation.
The advice is subject to individual force analysis that ALL of the information can be retrieved within the FOI cost threshold. If Section 12 is relevant to you, when issuing your refusal notice we would suggest you invite the applicant to refine their request if feasible to do so.
The acquisition and disclosure of communications data covers information acquired from communications service providers relating to communications and falls under Part 1 Chapter 2 of RIPA.
The total number of notices and authorisations broken down to force level, under RIPA Part 1 Chapter 2, for the whole of 2013 is published within the 2013 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner on page 76, see below link:
In addition a previous request asking for acquisition of communications data volume by calendar year, together with the number of requests to access such data that were rejected by the approving officer, was considered suitable for release at that time, case no 1695/14 refers. However stating that ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************S31. It was also noted in that advice that communications data is used to assist with all manner of police enquiries and is not necessarily associated with surveillance of individuals. Practitioners were also advised that Annual figures (financial year) only should be released.
In this case the applicant is asking for the number of requests submitted by Police Scotland to communication service providers during September 2014. Although this is for a very large force area, the timescale is extremely low.
As information has only been disclosed previously at an annualised level, to release information for a one month time period ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************S31 Individuals involved in crime may change their methods or move operations to evade detection. In this way, the effectiveness of police activities would be compromised.
Although police forces can only apply for data if it suspects a crime has been committed, the statistical number requested is not information that has been obtained purely for the purposes of a criminal investigation, therefore Section 35(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement is engaged.
There is a great public interest in the use of this legislation, and disclosure of the information might add additional substance to the ongoing public debate. However, the detrimental effect it would have on police tactics would not be in the public interest. There is already a great deal of scrutiny associated with the use of RIPA, and this serves the purpose of monitoring police activities and adding to the public debate.
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
Police Service of Scotland has received the below request submitted by **********S40.
FOI Request - submitted 20/01/15
Q1: Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act how many request have Police Scotland made for authorisation to carry out surveillance?
Q2: Please provide the information broken down by month since Police Scotland formed on April 1st 2013.
Q3: How many request for authorisation to carry out surveillance made by Police Scotland under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act have been granted? Please also provide information on who granted the request.
Q4: Please provide the information broken down by month since Police Scotland was formed on April 1st 2013.
Q5: How many request for authorisation to carry out surveillance made by Police Scotland under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act have been turned down? Please also provide information on who turned down the request and any information on why it was turned down.
Q6: Please provide the information broken down by month since Police Scotland formed on April 1st 2013.
The advice from a national perspective is:
The applicant is asking for information under RIPA about surveillance. In Scotland it is only Part 1 Chapter 2 of RIPA legislation which is relevant. Although the applicant asks for the number of authorisations to carry our surveillance made by Police Scotland under RIPA, this relates to Communications Data only.
The advice is subject to individual force analysis that ALL of the information can be retrieved within the FOI cost threshold. If Section 12 is relevant to you, when issuing your refusal notice we would suggest you invite the applicant to refine their request if feasible to do so.
If you are able to retrieve the information:
The acquisition and disclosure of communications data covers information acquired from communications service providers relating to communications and
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 11 –
falls under Part 1 Chapter 2 of RIPA.
The total number of notices and authorisations broken down to force level, under RIPA Part 1 Chapter 2, for the whole of 2013 is published within the 2013 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner on page 76, see below link:
In addition a previous request asking for acquisition of communications data volume by calendar year, together with the number of requests to access such data that were rejected by the approving officer, was considered suitable for release at that time, case no 1695/14 refers. However it was stated that ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************S31 It was also noted in that advice that communications data is used to assist with all manner of police enquiries and is not necessarily associated with surveillance of individuals. Since this case (1695/14) forces can disclose force totals by calendar year, obviously in this case, for police Scotland that will only run from Apr-Dec 2013. This is still safe for disclosure, provided you ensure that you maintain the calendar year level int eh future, and do not drift into financial years.
Question 1
The applicant hasn’t provided a timescale for this question but as the 2nd and 4th questions are asking for information for 2013 we are presuming the applicant requests this information for 2013.
Therefore as this information is published the applicant can be directed to the relevant link.
Question 2
The applicant is asking for the information provided within question 1 to be broken down monthly from 1st April 2013. As with case no 126/15, although Police Scotland is a very large force area, the timescale is extremely low.
Information has only ever been disclosed previously at an annualised level. To release information on a monthly basis would enable individuals to work out the number of communications data applications for each month. If a request was submitted to all forces nationally asking for the monthly figures, disclosure would identify peaks and troughs of communication data applications for each force and ultimately reveal specific operational activity. Individuals involved in crime may change their methods or move operations to evade detection. In this way, the effectiveness of police activities would be compromised.
Although police forces can only apply for data if it suspects a crime has been committed, the statistical number requested is not information that has been obtained purely for the purposes of a criminal investigation, therefore Section 35(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement is engaged.
There is a great public interest in the use of this legislation, and disclosure of the
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 12 –
information might add additional substance to the ongoing public debate. However, the detrimental effect it would have on police tactics would not be in the public interest. There is already a great deal of scrutiny associated with the use of RIPA, and this serves the purpose of monitoring police activities and adding to the public debate.
In addition the MPS website confirms that the RIPA course for Authorising Officers and Gatekeepers is for Superintendents performing the role of RIPA Authorising Officer, or police staff performing the role of RIPA gatekeepers, see below link:
Therefore we can see no harm in advising the applicant that Superintendents carry out this role, you may also wish to refer the applicant to the MPS publication.
Question 4
Please see advice for question 2.
Question 5
As the number of authorisations as an annualised total and broken down to the number granted is recommended to be disclosed, we can see no harm in providing the total number of rejections by calendar year.
Question 6
Please see advice for question 2.
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 13 –
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 10 February 2015 13:51 To: 'Cheshire ([email protected])' Subject: CASE NO 27/15 - INTERNAL REVIEW ADVICE - ************S40 - RIPA Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Attachments: 0002_REQ FOR IR_20150128_151212.DOC; 0001_REQ FOR IR_20150128_151212.HTM
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU
John
Thank you for advising us that this applicant has requested an internal review into the original NCND response to the below request:
I would like to make a request for a copy of the authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act or other legislation to carry out targeted surveillance on both protesters AND supporters in and around land of Duttons Lane, Upton, Farndon Kingsmarsh and Ellesmere Port Portside Coal Bed Methane exploratory / production drilling sites.
I appreciate you will rely on statutory exemptions to refuse this request but in order to pre-empt that refusal I am happy to accept a redacted version which does not disclose 'operational Police matters' but includes the grounds and the authorising officer.
The applicant stated within his IR to Cheshire:
This appears to be a stock answer, probably from the ACPO (please confirm this in the next response.)
I'm asking for a review as to why you are neither confirming or denying this information.
As i said in my last email (FOI) which was not included in your response your operations information and intelligence gathering results are not of interest to this request.
Internal Review Advice
The applicant is asking for information relating to targeted
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 14 –
surveillance where RIPA authorisations were required for a particular location. The definition of surveillance is 'close observation, especially of a suspected spy or criminal' see below link:
We stand by our original advice inasmuch as this request attracts a neither confirm nor deny stance.
With regard to the statement 'this appears to be a stock answer, probably from ACPO, please let me know in your next response'; technically this is a new question, however it doesn't fulfil the criteria of Section 8 as it is not asking for recorded information.
That being said, we can surmise that the applicant is asking for confirmation or denial as to whether ACPO were involved in the answer. We are happy for you to confirm that the request was referred to the National Police Data Protection and Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit for guidance, however the decision on how the respond was down to Cheshire Constabulary.
We would also suggest you direct the applicant to the ACPO Manual of Guidance for Freedom of Information, version 6, which can be found at the below link:
This manual provides detail of the referral criteria however we would suggest that although the referral criteria still follows this manual, the College of Policing will shortly be publishing the new Authorised Professional Practice for Freedom of Information which the CRU will be following once published.
The applicant may also find the below link to the IOCCO Annual Report useful, which can be found at the below link:
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 15 –
c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 10 February 2015 12:18 To: 'Freedom Of Information' Subject: FW: Your advice ref: 000088/15 - ************S40 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Attachments: 731 Response Letter.docx
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU
Amanda
Thank you for sending through a copy of your draft response. On assessing the draft I notice that the final sentence under the 'Response to your Request' section you state 'Your request is considered vexatious for the following reasons'. We would suggest you tweak this to read 'Requests asking for information about RIPA and journalistic sources are now considered to be vexatious for the following reasons'. By doing this is it not directing the Section 14(1) to the applicant but to the actual request.
In addition we would suggest you include a paragraph similar to that within the advice where Section 14(1) is articulated including the part about motive/applicant blind (bottom of page 4 and top of page 5. Again by doing this it explains the rationale taken when considering whether Section 14(1) was relevant to this request.
I hope this helps, any queries please come back to me.
Regards
Heather
Heather Waller National Freedom of Information Referral Officer
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
National Police FOI and DP CRU email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS
From: Freedom Of Information [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 09 February 2015 15:46 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: Your advice ref: 000088/15 - TURVILL
Good afternoon
Please see attached drafted response to ************S40. Would you please review and let us know if you advise any additional/amended wording. This is due out by Friday.
Thank you v. much
Amanda Gibson
Freedom of Information Decision Maker Information Management Department
Subject: Log No.229/15 CRU Circulation (05/02/2015) - Your Ref. 2015020000343 - ************S40 - RIPA - Including Advice
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attachments: 0001_88 15 RESULT ADVICE_20150127_100707.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 Ben, Rozmarie
The following FOI request has been logged in the CRU today - Advice is at the end of the message.
Log Number:229/15
Case worker:Heather Waller
Logged with:Metropolitan Police
Sent from: ************ S40
1. How many times has the Met obtained journalistic phone records under RIPA from 2010 to the current day? Please provide a breakdown for each year.
Advice:
As the subject of this request relates to journalistic phone records under RIPA, and you have previous issued a Section 14(1) notice in respect of a similar request.
As you know the application of S14 is to the request and not the individual, and although the volumes are not the same with this applicant the principles are. When compiling your Section 14(1) refusal the focus should be on the fact that these types of requests have been dealt with on numerous occasions in the past where they have received a Section 12 refusal notice or, dependent of request, either a partial or full neither confirm nor deny response. These refusals are published on some force disclosure logs, examples can be found at the below links:
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
Taking into account the above points and also considering the excessive burden on forces to deal with these requests the CRU recommend practitioners consider issuing a full Section 14(1) similar to that cited within case no 88/15.
Ultimately the citing of Section 14(1) is a matter for each individual authority. However, not applying it here, but applying it to the ************S40 requests is likely to have an impact.
I have attached a copy of advice for case no 88/15 for your information only, however when compiling your response please ensure it is worded as case specific for this request and taking into account the points raised within this advice.
<CRU Advice as above>
If you have any queries 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
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU
Dear Rozmarie
The following FOI request has been logged in the CRU today - Advice is at the end of the message.
Log Number: 262/15
Case worker: Mrs Alex Cousins
Logged with: Metropolitan Police
Sent from: ************S40
Between 01/02/14 and 01/02/15 how many times have officers carried out subscriber checks to trace the owner of a mobile phone?
For each incident where a subscriber check was carried out, what was the nature of the crime being investigated.
Advice:
The advice is based on the assumption that you can retrieve all the information within the cost threshold. We think that retrieval within cost is unlikely as in a current similar request - MPS ref 2014090001155 - you have stated that for the financial year 2013/2014 there were 47,758 requests for communications and surveillance data and you would need to check each one to retrieve the information for the second part of this request.
There have been a number of similar requests recently and the current advice is that information on Communications Data has been released previously but only the
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 20 –
number of requirements made for 'subscriber information' and no further detail should be disclosed by calendar year. IOCCO have now started to publish the data in calendar year, and if forces publish their own data by financial year, the public would be able to work out how many requests were made over the time period of Jan-April, which would then start to break down the information to low levels. We have very recently therefore changed our stance and have advised forces that they must only disclose the information in calendar year to prevent this from happening.
Any further information relating to details of the crime being investigated will be exempt by virtue of Section 30 as the RIPA application will relate to information gathered for the purposes of a specific crime and disclosure could prejudice future criminal proceedings.
If your request is not excess cost and you would like further assistance or would like to have your draft reviewed then please contact the CRU.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 11 February 2015 16:29 To: 'Freedom Of Information' Subject: RE: FOI request 2014 17502 ************S40 ASSISTANCE Log Number:88/15 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU
Freya
I can confirm that the advice for case no 88/15 stands. In answer to Sion's query the meeting with the applicant is scheduled for tomorrow.
If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.
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: Freedom Of Information [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 February 2015 15:44 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: FW: FOI request 2014 17502 ************S40 ASSISTANCE Log
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 22 –
Number:88/15 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Importance: High
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Hi all,
Re the ************S40 RIPA Tel numbers request your ref: Log Number:88/15 can I just check that sect 14 still stands as the advice? Our Corp Comms manager was aware of the below and wanted to check?
Many thanks
Freya
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
From: Ffrancon Sion Sent: 11 February 2015 11:38 To: Freedom Of Information Subject: FW: FOI request 2014 17502 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Hi Freya
With this one can you quickly check with the CRU whether the attached is still appropriate in light of what was published by No.10 last week and also whether they’ve met with Mr ************S40 in the meantime to discuss the issue (I believe ACPO were trying to broker a meeting this week).
Thanks in advance.
Kind regards
Sion
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
From: Freedom Of Information Sent: 02 February 2015 12:56 To: Ffrancon Sion Cc: Greasley Debra Subject: FW: FOI request 2014 17502 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 23 –
Hello
Another FOI for approval please
Many thanks
Freya
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
From: Roberts Ian W Sent: 30 January 2015 09:33 To: Freedom Of Information Cc: Elliott Lorna Subject: RE: FOI request 2014 17502 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 24 –
To: Roberts Ian W Cc: Elliott Lorna Subject: FOI request 2014 17502 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Hello both,
Please see attached my proposed disclosure to FOI 17502 RIPA Tel numbers. Taking into account the previous requests we have received from this applicant and the advice of the CRU I have exempt the information under sect 14- vexatious request.
Ian – please could you approve?
Many thanks
Freya
Freya Bryant Swyddog Rhyddid Gwybodaeth / Freedom of Information Assistant
Oeddech chi’n gwybod bod modd gweld gwybodaeth am Heddlu Gwent drwy Gynllun Cyhoeddi a Chofnod Datgeliadau Heddlu Gwent? Mae’r ddau ar gael drwy’r ddolen isod:
Did you know you can access information about Gwent Police via the Gwent Police Publication Scheme and Disclosure Log? Both are available via the below link:
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 25 –
***************************************************************************************************** Gwent Police. The information contained in this correspondence is intended only for the named person or organisation to whom it is addressed. If you have received it in error please notify us and destroy it. Unauthorised disclosure or use of such information may be inappropriate, in breach of legislation or confidentiality.
Heddlu Gwent. Mae'r wybodaeth yn yr ohebiaeth hon ar gyfer yr unigolyn neu'r sefydliad y'i cyfeiriwyd ato. Os derbyniwch hwn mewn camgymeriad,dywedwch wrthym a'i ddifa. Gall datgelu neu ddefnyddio gwybodaeth o'r fath fod yn weithred anaddas, ac yn groes i ddeddfwriaeth neu gyfrinachedd.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 26 –
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 13 February 2015 11:04 To: 'FOI, Inverness' Cc: 'Scottish FOI Central Processing Unit ([email protected])' Subject: RE: FOLLOW UP QUERY 2015-0158 : Log No. 137/15 CRU Circulation (22/01/2015) - ************S40 - RIPSA - Advice to Follow [RESTRICTED] Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
Is this true for Scotland? Are the total number of RIPSA figures published by anyone? If so then the applicant could be directed. If not you could release the number of directed (by calendar year). *******************************************************************************************************. S40
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
I have CC'd the CPU in as I'm sure they must have dealt with this issue?
I hope this makes sense?
Regards Martyn Leigh Deputy Manager National Police FOI & DP Central Referral Unit (CRU) E-mail: [email protected] Telephone : 0844 892 9010 Mobile: S40 c/o ACRO, PO Box 481, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 9FS
From: FOI, Inverness [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 12 February 2015 14:31 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Cc: CPU, FOI Subject: FOLLOW UP QUERY 2015-0158 : Log No. 137/15 CRU Circulation (22/01/2015) - ************S40 - RIPSA - Advice to Follow [RESTRICTED]
GPMS Classification: RESTRICTED
Afternoon Heather,
Sorry to come back to you again today with yet another enquiry.
In terms of the FOI below (regarding the number of applications for authorisations to carry out Surveillance) we have interpreted the question to refer to RIP(S)A - not RIPA Part1, Ch 2, to which your advice refers.
I have checked through the records I can access here and can't find any advice you have previously issued to us regarding this subject. I may just have missed it but I think our previous requests have been all in respect of RIPA Part 1, Chapter 2 - applications for communications etc.
- 27 –
In addition, we have been provided with some data by our national Specialist Crime Division (SCD) who have also interpreted the question to refer to RIPSA / surveillance.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
If we are taking this approach, do you have any advice which you could provide in this instance regarding RIP(S)A surveillance figures?
For your information, **********************************************************************S31 In terms of the authorising officers, a general description of the process is provided ie above min rank of Superintendent - no officer details.
This request is now in it's final week so I would be very grateful for a quick turnaround if at all possible.
Many thanks again for your help and I look forward to hearing from you.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU
Dear All,
The following FOI request has been logged in the CRU today - Advice will follow in due course.
Log Number:000137/15 Case worker:Heather Waller Referred by:Police Service of Scotland Sent from: ************ S40
• Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act how many request have Police Scotland made for authorisation to carry out surveillance?
Please provide the information broken down by month since Police Scotland formed on April 1st 2013.
• How many request for authorisation to carry out surveillance made by Police Scotland under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act have been granted? Please also provide information on who granted the request.
Please provide the information broken down by month since Police Scotland was formed on April 1st 2013.
• How many request for authorisation to carry out surveillance made by Police Scotland under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act have been turned down? Please also provide information on who turned down the request and any information on why it was turned down.
Please provide the information broken down by month since Police Scotland formed on April 1st 2013.
Regards
Heather
Heather Waller National Freedom of Information
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 30 –
Referral Officer National Police FOI and DP CRU email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 8929010 c/o PO Box 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS
********************************************************************************* This electronic message contains information from Hampshire Constabulary which may be legally privileged and confidential. Any opinions expressed may be those of the individual and not necessarily the Hampshire Constabulary.
The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone +44 (0) 845 045 45 45 or email to [email protected] immediately. Please then delete this email and destroy any copies of it.
All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to and from the Hampshire Constabulary may be subject to monitoring. Replies to this email may be seen by employees other than the intended recipient. *********************************************************************************
GPMS Classification: RESTRICTED by User: Quick, Donna on: 12 February 2015 at: 14:31:08 with attachment(s): FW: Log No. 137/15 CRU Circulation (22/01/2015) - Jenny Kane - RIPSA - Advice to Follow CRU Referral 2015-0158.doc
The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is private and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. It is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, review, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software or contact POLICE SCOTLAND on (+44) 1786 289070 and delete the e-mail.
Tha am fiosrachadh sa phost-d seo, agus ann an ceangal(an) sam bith na chois, pr?obhaideach agus dh?fhaodte FO SHOCHAIR LAGHAIL. ?S ann a-mh?in airson an neach-uidhe a tha e. Mura tusa an neach-uidhe no mura h-eil dleastanas ort a chur air adhart chun an neach-uidhe, thathar le seo a? leigeil fios dhut gu bheil e toirmisgte am post-d seo a chleachdadh air dh?igh sam bith, no fhoillseachadh, no sgr?dadh, no sgaoileadh, no riarachadh, no lethbhreac a dh?anamh dheth.
Ma th?inig am post-d seo thugad le mearachd, leig fios sa bhad chun an neach a sgaoil e, a? cleachdadh a? ghoireis fhreagairt ann am bathar-bog a? phuist-d agad no le fios a chur gu POILIS NA H-ALBA air (+44) 1786 289070 agus cuir ?s dhan phost-d.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 13 February 2015 14:22 To: '[email protected]' Subject: FW: 1.NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED-All Networks:: PSNI RE: Log No.200/15 RIPA - ************S40 CRU Circulation (02/02/2015) - Advice to Follow Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Attachments: 00394-Draft Response.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 Jane
Thank you for sending us a copy of your draft response (although you didn't need to because it was a national request), which looks fine.
Regards
Sue Mason 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
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 February 2015 12:49 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: 1.NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED-All Networks:: PSNI RE: Log No.200/15 RIPA - ************S40 CRU Circulation (02/02/2015) - Advice to Follow
Sue
I have received the response from Crime Ops and they have no harm in the release of the information.
- 31 –
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 32 –
I have attached for information the draft response for information / approval.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
Dear Team,
The following FOI request has been logged in the CRU today - Advice will follow in due course.
Log Number:200/15
Case worker:Sue Mason
Referred by:PSNI
Sent from: ************S40
I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request information relating to your Force’s acquisition of communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers 2000, specifically I am requesting;
The number of times your force has requested communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The number times a request was rejected internally.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 33 –
I request that the time period covered is 1st January 2012- 1st January 2015.
I further request that the information be broken down by either calendar year or financial year, whichever is most easily accessible to you.
Regards,
Claire McNelis Management Support Assistant ACPO Freedom of Information Central Referral Unit E-mail: [email protected] Telephone : 0844 892 9010 c/o ACRO, PO Box 481, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 9FS
This electronic message contains information from the Freedom of Information Unit which may be legally privileged and confidential. Any opinions expressed may be those of the individual and not necessarily the Freedom of Information Unit.
The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone
+44 (0) 845 045 45 45 or email to [email protected] immediately. Please then delete this email and destroy any copies of it.
All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages
to and from ACRO may be subject to monitoring. Replies to this email may be seen by employees other than the intended recipient.
********************************************************************** Any views expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily those of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Internet email is not to be treated as a secure means of communication. PSNI monitors all internet email activity and content. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software. All e-mails are swept for the presence of viruses. **********************************************************************
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 16 February 2015 15:36 To: 'FOI, Inverness' Subject: RE: FTAO MARTYN LEIGH FOLLOW UP QUERY 2015-0158 : Log No. 137/15 CRU Circulation (22/01/2015) - ************S40 - RIPSA [RESTRICTED]
Hi Donna
Looks fine to me (from my limited knowledge of FOISA), as outlined, ************************************ S31, then it should be good to go. It certainly reads similar to ours!
Regards Martyn Leigh Deputy Manager National Police FOI & DP Central Referral Unit (CRU) E-mail: [email protected] Telephone : 0844 892 9010 Mobile: ************S40 c/o ACRO, PO Box 481, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 9FS
From: FOI, Inverness [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 February 2015 14:51 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: FTAO MARTYN LEIGH FOLLOW UP QUERY 2015-0158 : Log No. 137/15 CRU Circulation (22/01/2015) - ************S40 - RIPSA [RESTRICTED]
GPMS Classification: RESTRICTED
Good afternoon Martyn,
Thank you for coming back to me so quickly for this one. I have read your advice and talked to local officers and hope we have come up with an appropriate response. I have sent it to Chief Supt Mason who is the business lead for this area for final sign off, but wondered if you would be kind enough to have a quick look at it for me (just for my own peice of mind). As always, the Scottish legislation is not always an exact fit but I hope we have struck the right balance i************************************************************************S31
Thanks again for your help - it was much appreciated.
Kind regards
- 34 –
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
From: FOI, Inverness Sent: 16 February 2015 14:45 To: Mason, Ricky Cc: Donaldson, David Subject: DRAFT FOR APPROVAL FOI request 2015 - 0158. [RESTRICTED - INVESTIGATIONS] [RESTRICTED]
GPMS Classification: RESTRICTED
Good afternoon, Based on the ACPO CRU guidance below (unfortunately not an exact fit for our legislation) and the assistance of DS Bryden I have drafted the attached response in relation to the RIP(S)A Surveillance FOI - 0158.
DS Bryden has provided the figures and I have included a brief explanation of RIPA / RIPSA and the appropriate links to annual reporting / Commissioners websites. **********************************************************************S31
We would ************************************************************ S31 as per the guidance.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 37 –
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
Hi Donna
Heather is not in today, so I will try to assist.
Our advice in terms of RIPA disclosures is:
'Total number of RIPA applications has not been disclosed previously under FOI, only the total annualised calendar year number of communications data applications and directed surveillance applications as a joint figure. ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************S31
So other forces disclose the total number of comms and directed surveillance figures as a total. Your total for RIPSA would not include comms. ************ S31 However I do not see this as a problem per se, because we also release the comms data separately so anyone could subtract one from the other and then know the number of directed. Even then it is safe because force level totals are not published anyway, for all of the data, therefore you cannot subtract directed from any total and work out intrusive (which is the sensitive issue). ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************S31
Is this true for Scotland? Are the total number of RIPSA figures published by anyone? If so then the applicant could be directed. If not you could release the number of directed (by calendar year). ************************************************************************************************************************************************S31
I have CC'd the CPU in as I'm sure they must have dealt with this issue?
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
I hope this makes sense?
Regards Martyn Leigh Deputy Manager National Police FOI & DP Central Referral Unit (CRU) E-mail: [email protected] Telephone : 0844 892 9010 Mobile: ************S40 c/o ACRO, PO Box 481, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 9FS
From: FOI, Inverness [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 12 February 2015 14:31 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Cc: CPU, FOI Subject: FOLLOW UP QUERY 2015-0158 : Log No. 137/15 CRU Circulation (22/01/2015) - ************S40 - RIPSA - Advice to Follow [RESTRICTED]
GPMS Classification: RESTRICTED
Afternoon Heather, Sorry to come back to you again today with yet another enquiry. In terms of the FOI below (regarding the number of applications for authorisations to carry out Surveillance) we have interpreted the question to refer to RIP(S)A - not RIPA Part1, Ch 2, to which your advice refers. I have checked through the records I can access here and can't find any advice you have previously issued to us regarding this subject. I may just have missed it but I think our previous requests have been all in respect of RIPA Part 1, Chapter 2 - applications for communications etc. In addition, we have been provided with some data by our national Specialist Crime Division (SCD) who have also interpreted the question to refer to RIPSA / surveillance. If we are taking this approach, do you have any advice which you could provide in this instance regarding RIP(S)A surveillance figures?
- 38 –
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
For your information, ************ ************************************S31 In terms of the authorising officers, a general description of the process is provided ie above min rank of Superintendent - no officer details.
This request is now in it's final week so I would be very grateful for a quick turnaround if at all possible.
Many thanks again for your help and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Donna
Donna Quick Information Support Officer Information Management Unit Police Scotland
Divisional Headquarters Old Perth Road Inverness IV2 3SY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is private and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. It is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, review, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software or contact POLICE SCOTLAND on (+44)1786 289070 and delete the e-mail.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 41 –
GPMS Classification: RESTRICTED by User: Quick, Donna on: 13 February 2015 at: 12:20:38 with attachment(s):
GPMS Classification: RESTRICTED by User: Quick, Donna on: 16 February 2015 at: 14:45:15 with attachment(s): 2015-0158 draft response.doc
GPMS Classification: RESTRICTED by User: Quick, Donna on: 16 February 2015 at: 14:51:57 with attachment(s): 2015-0158 draft response.doc
The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is private and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. It is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, review, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software or contact POLICE SCOTLAND on (+44) 1786 289070 and delete the e-mail.
Tha am fiosrachadh sa phost-d seo, agus ann an ceangal(an) sam bith na chois, pr?obhaideach agus dh?fhaodte FO SHOCHAIR LAGHAIL. ?S ann a-mh?in airson an neach-uidhe a tha e. Mura tusa an neach-uidhe no mura h-eil dleastanas ort a chur air adhart chun an neach-uidhe, thathar le seo a? leigeil fios dhut gu bheil e toirmisgte am post-d seo a chleachdadh air dh?igh sam bith, no fhoillseachadh, no sgr?dadh, no sgaoileadh, no riarachadh, no lethbhreac a dh?anamh dheth.
Ma th?inig am post-d seo thugad le mearachd, leig fios sa bhad chun an neach a sgaoil e, a? cleachdadh a? ghoireis fhreagairt ann am bathar-bog a? phuist-d agad no le fios a chur gu POILIS NA H-ALBA air (+44) 1786 289070 agus cuir ?s dhan phost-d.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
Date created: 17 February 2015 Caseworker: Martyn Leigh/Heather Waller
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Northumbria Police
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Nottinghamshire Police
Dorset Police Police Service of Scotland
Durham Constabulary PSNI
Durham Constabulary South Wales Police
Dyfed Powys Police South Yorkshire Police
Essex Police Suffolk Constabulary
Gloucestershire Constabulary Surrey Police
Greater Manchester Police Sussex Police
Gwent Police Thames Valley Police
Hampshire Constabulary Warwickshire Police
Hertfordshire Constabulary West Mercia Constabulary
Humberside Police West Midlands Police
Kent Police West Yorkshire Police
Kent Police Wiltshire Constabulary
have received the below request submitted by William ************S40 .
Can you please provide me with copies of all correspondence between your force and the Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office in relation to its inquiry, published yesterday, into police use of RIPA to find journalistic sources. Please redact names and personal information where necessary.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 43 –
CLARIFICATION TO NORTHUMBRIA
I sent the below FoI to your police force yesterday. I would like to clarify that as part of this request I would like in addition to correspondence copies of any forms filled out by your force for the IOCCO.
The advice from a national perspective is below; any text in red is NOT suitable for inclusion in any response:
Short Summary
This request forms the latest in a series of requests on the subject of the police use of RIPA, whilst carrying out surveillance on journalists.
Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter there are usually several FOI exemptions engaged with requests on this business area. The requests normally require extensive stakeholder consultation and are a major burden to forces in terms of the work required in ascertaining whether relevant data is held and engagement in order to primarily protect what is one of the most sensitive areas of policing. Our police records management around RIPA data does not always suit the request, and for that reason s12, excess cost, has often been applied to these requests.
Since the first tranche of requests in September 2014, responses to applicants have clearly articulated the issues with regard to processing such information under FOI and more recently there have been warnings issued in terms of S14(1) of the Act, in that these requests were approaching the threshold where they may be regarded as vexatious. This threshold was crossed when a further request was received by six forces on the 15th January (our ref 88/15).
It is our view; endorsed by the relevant business areas, that this latest request and others on the subject matter fully engage S14 (1) and this should be applied.
As always with S14, forces should consider the preferential application of S12, excess cost first, however we would consider that unlikely in terms of this request.
S14 (1) Vexatious
ICO guidance on the subject states:
‘Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme of circumstances.
In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request. The public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant.’
Our evidence and considerations in applying S14, against this back drop is as
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 44 –
follows:
Disproportionate Burden
Firstly, FOI legislation is designed to provide opportunities whereby the public can shine a torch on the decision making and workings of a public authority. However, this does not mean that information has to automatically be disclosed. To do so without some thought process would be reckless and likely to breach other relevant legislation, such as the Data Protection Act (DPA), and in this case, potentially the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) itself. In addition to this, disclosure of information relating to the police use of surveillance may also lead to damage to investigations, tactics, covert activity and operations. Therefore any requests for relevant data have to be carefully thought through and the relevant exemptions and public interest factors considered.
This is not a simplistic task if the data is requested under FOI. RIPA is one of a series of toolkits available to investigators and it can be used to obtain communications data, carry out surveillance and deploy covert human intelligence sources (CHIS). Its functions require various levels of authority and its use is strictly monitored. It can only be used when there is a criminal investigation, and it must always be proportionate. Although there will always be some central records kept, as there are requirements to do so, in terms of applications the majority of the intimate detail tends to be contained within each individual investigation that it has been used for. There is no ability to simply press a button and the data will appear when the request is focussed on a particular occupation or circumstance in which RIPA has been used.
Therefore FOI requests requiring any level of detail are often refused on cost, as the retrieval of the data would exceed the 18 hour limit. That has often been the case with these requests. But, whenever a request is received, FOI units still have to engage with the information owners, in order to ascertain if the data can be retrieved, as we have a statutory obligation to do so. This immediately places additional workloads and distractions on policing departments whose primary function is to investigate the more complex and serious crimes that we have to deal with.
Post that activity, FOI units then also have to engage with the various stakeholders in disclosure. Again due to the subject area this is likely to be senior detectives and persistent engagement on the same subject begins to impact on their core functions. It is also impactive on FOI units, who are usually operating at maximum capacity in terms of having to service the ever growing number of other requests we receive.
Our standard practice though, and it has been followed here, is that such a burden is seen as necessary in order to service our statutory obligations under FOI. It is therefore rare that any request would be immediately refused under S14, simply because it was complex or required extensive information retrieval and or consultation. In the case of requests for our use of RIPA and journalists we did not do so when the first request was received in September 2014, instead we have adopted an approach whereby applicants have been issued with refusals outlining the cost issues or where that was not applicable, complex exemptions and neither confirm nor deny responses.
Many of these responses attracted negative articles in many national press publications such as:
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 45 –
It is also important to note, that although the first request purely focused on use of RIPA and journalists was received in September 2014, we have always had requests on the more general use of RIPA. As such there is much in the public domain outlining our approach, where headline figures are released, such as:
Also relevant is the fact that the public portal for making requests, whatdotheyknow.com, reveals 846 requests to various public authorities on the subject of RIPA. Analyses of the responses show that generic data is often disclosed but more focussed low level detail is more often than not refused.
It is therefore fair to say that in addition to individual responses sent to applicants on this subject matter there is a wealth of open source data on the approach to disclosures of RIPA data under FOI, and we would have expected experienced investigative journalists to have had some grasp of the sensitive environment in which these requests were being made into. It is somewhat disappointing if they did not already have a feel for the fact that the initial responses would not include disclosure of the low level data required. Even if they had no concept the initial responses to the early requests often contained lengthy explanations of the issues in a balanced and informative format.
It was also towards the end of 2014 that we began including warnings re continued applications for the same information. This has not prevented us from continuing to receive the requests, often duplicated word for word, or simply asking for the same information in a slightly different manner.
It would be pertinent here for forces to include there own data in terms of number of requests received on the subject, identical ones such as our refs 1496/14, 88/15, 218/15, and any other similarities between requests.
The initial requests came on the back of concerns in the world of media, post Leverson, with regard there being potential police misuse of RIPA. Whether these concerns affected the FOI decision making and what they meant in terms of disclosure are covered later under the ‘public interest and value of requests’ section. However, it is relevant here as the issue caused parliament to become involved and that led to select committee recommendations:
The recommendations were that all the data be provided to IOCCO, in order that matter could be properly reviewed. The work involved in that, although a separate burden on the relevant police business areas, nevertheless had a direct correlation to the affect on forces in terms of FOI processing as their resources became further restricted with the IOCCO work obviously taking priority.
Overall, we are therefore surprised that applicants, particularly journalists, did not appreciate that firstly repeated requests on the subject would not be likely to invoke a different response and that each one was complex in terms of the processing and the burden on forces. The burden of persistent applications has been clearly articulated and should be obvious to a reasonable person.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 46 –
Public Interest and the Value of Requests
The application of S14 is not subject to a public interest test. However, the examination of whether there is any real value in a request is pertinent, and uniquely in this case, we feel that does relate to the public interest.
The use of RIPA is a contentious area; it is for that reason that the usage of the legislation is very carefully monitored and subject to independent scrutiny. Although a critical law enforcement tool it is contrary to our expected levels of privacy and ‘state’ monitoring. It has to therefore be carefully managed.
It is not unreasonable to therefore expect focus on the subject, when there is a belief that the rules have in some way been breached. So serious are the issues that it led here to parliamentary intervention as outlined above.
The importance of the public being made aware of the issues, so that proper informed debate could take place was always factored into early decision making when responding to the subject of journalists and the police use of RIPA. It was, and still is, a powerful public interest factor which was not easily overcome.
However, the fact remains that journalists, as a collective group, can be caught up in RIPA activity for a myriad of reasons. This does not mean they themselves were necessarily under surveillance, but they could be victims of crime, whose data is captured through police investigation, potential witnesses or innocent parties, who have been contacted by others under investigation, so captured within third party communications data, or they could be criminals themselves, who are being investigated and occupation is irrelevant. The same could be said of any other identifiable group such as teachers, taxi drivers and of course police officers.
There will always need to be in such circumstances a strong desire to protect police activity so that investigations are not disrupted, nor is anything placed in the public domain which renders police tactics less effective. The harm this would cause should not be underestimated. RIPA legislation also includes the deployment and usage of CHIS, and we have solemn vows to protect them and their activities. The risk in some of these cases could result in extreme harm befalling individuals and the police level of trust severely eroded. This is not to say that such assets have ever been involved in investigations involving journalists, but any disclosure under FOI simply on the subject of RIPA has wide ranging repercussions.
As serious as these issues are, they have to be balanced against the public right to know, and as clearly articulated non disclosure was not a decision taken lightly, in the relevant cases.
Even though that was relevant in early decision making, the public interest has now changed. IOCCO have now published their report into the subject and the police have not been found substantially wanting in terms of the illegal use of the legislation as being claimed by several journalists. It states at 8.3 ‘Police forces are not randomly trawling communications data relating to journalists in order to identify their sources’. There have been localised individual disclosure of cases, where things did not go as well as we would have hoped, and those disclosures, coupled with IOCCO’s findings, have severely reduced the strength of that public interest in disclosure.
It is primarily this, coupled with unreasonable persistence on the subject that must lead us to now consider there to be little value in the continued application of FOI requests on the subject. The sensitivities on disclosure have not changed, whereas the need to inform the public has been catered for through other mediums. FOI was never designed to enable applicants to continue a campaign or determined pursuit of information when there are concerns over public authority activities, if these activities have been
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 47 –
adjudged to be correct and appropriate.
Summary
Requests on the subject of journalists and the police use of RIPA clearly meet the bar set in the definitive caselaw on protecting public authorities’ resources from unreasonable requests, which was the Upper Tribunal in the case of Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013).
Several key indicators were outlined in this case and we feel that evidence exists in these requests which enables us to conclude they are vexatious, under the terms of S14 (1) of the Act. Primarily, the burden on the authority, unreasonable persistence, unfounded accusations (albeit we accept there are no accusations within the requests per se), frequent or overlapping requests and ‘fishing’ for information.
Bearing this advice in mind, forces should carefully analyse any requests they have on the subject of RIPA and its use in relation to journalists. As you will be aware it is not individuals that are vexatious but their requests. This approach is fully endorsed by the relevant policing business areas. Although cost will always be your primary consideration, followed by S14, any force choosing to not follow this advice must be mindful of the fact that to do so would undermine the approach taken by others. In ************************S40 this has already resulted in S14 being applied to earlier requests.
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.
We will support any appeal made against the application of S14 and can provide further evidence, if required, in terms of personal engagement we have recently had with him which also provided evidence of intransigence on his part.
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 48 –
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 17 February 2015 15:18 To: 'Met FOI Mailbox ([email protected])'; [email protected]; ' ([email protected])' Subject: CASE NO 228/15 - ************S40 - RIPA TO FIND JOURNALISTIC SOURCES - RESULT ADVICE Attachments: ADVG_CRU ADVICE_20150217_084203.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
I have recently circulated the result advice for this request, however with regard to the MPS and Norfolk, although you have already issued a full Section 14(1) refusal notice for case no 88/15, we would advise you reconsider and issue a fresh notice taking into account the advice provided for this case.
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
The Metropolitan Police Service has received the below request submitted by ************S40.
I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information.
Following the publication of the report: "IOCCO inquiry into the use of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to identify journalistic sources" - by the Interception Commissioner please may you provide me with all materials which were sent to the Commissioner's office for the purpose of the report.
The advice from a national perspective is:
Background to this Request
As you are aware Freedom of Information is considered on an applicant and motive blind approach. However, a recent First Tier Tribunal titled Hepple v IC and Durham County Council (EA/2013/0168) covers the subject of motive blind:
“… We also bear in mind that it is frequently said that an information request should be considered without reference to the motive of the person making the request. That certainly ensures that focus is maintained on the fact that disclosure to a single requester is, effectively, disclosure to the world. But assessing an information request on this “motive blind” basis ought not to prevent us from considering the potential risk to safety posed by the requestor him/herself…”
The judgment can be read in full at the below link:
Following this judgment the CRU feel, when appropriate, the background of the applicant to establish the motive for a request can be taken into account.
In this case we have researched the internet and established that ************S40 is a digital journalist who has experience writing for all national newspapers. ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************
Taking into account all of the above we feel the motive for this request is to ascertain whether forces will respond to his request in the same way similar requests have been responded to. In addition there is suspicion that the request has been submitted as part of a ‘campaign’ as it is asking for the same information as a request which was recently deemed to be vexatious and was received from a journalistic background (case no 228/15 refers).
Responding to this Request
As stated above this request asks for the same information captured by case no 228/15. When citing Section 14 the exemption always relates to the subject to the request and not the individual making the request. In this case, taking into account the points raised within the background information, as there is suspicion the request may have been submitted as part of a campaign the CRU recommends Section 14(1) for this case.
When responding to the applicant we suggest practitioners clearly articulate that the motive and history of these types of request has been considered and is deemed a valid point for citing Section 14(1).
*** 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.
<CRU Advice as above>
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
Date created: 18 February 2015 Caseworker: Heather Waller
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 51 –
The Metropolitan Police Service has received the below request submitted by ************S40.
To whom it may concern:
Under the Freedom of Information Act, I request the following information concerning the Metropolitan Police's use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) towards journalists.
Of the following phone numbers, which has had call data obtained by the Metropolitan Police using RIPA?
************
************
************S40
The advice from a national perspective is:
Background to this Request
This request is substantially similar, i.e. identical telephone numbers asking which ones have had call data obtained by RIPA towards journalists, to case no 88/15. In addition, case no 217/15 has identical telephone numbers asking which numbers had call data obtained under RIPA (this case doesn’t mention journalists).
Responding to this Request
As you are no doubt aware a similar request was received by forces nationally earlier this year, case no 228/15 refers, and that request was deemed to be vexatious with regard to the disproportionate burden on the Police Service.
This request forms part of a series of requests on the same subject i.e. the police use of RIPA whilst carrying out surveillance on journalists. When citing Section 14 the exemption always relates to the subject of the request and not the individual making the request. In this case, the applicant hasn’t previously made any requests relating to this subject area, however as stipulated within ICO guidance a public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant. Therefore,
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 52 –
the CRU recommends Section 14(1) for this case. In addition we strongly advise when responding to the applicant practitioners clearly articulate that the history of these types of requests and the burden they have on the Police Service generally was a huge factor in the decision making process.
*** 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.
<Advice as above>
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
Date created: 18 February 2015 Caseworker: Heather Waller
The Metropolitan Police Service has received the below request submitted by ************S40.
Can you please tell me whether each of these numbers has had call data obtained by the Metropolitan Police under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2015.
Please note, these are general news organisation switchboard numbers, do not belong to individuals and could be used to contact hundreds of people each:
************
************
************
***********
************
************
************
************
************
************
************
S40
If call data has been obtained from any of these numbers please confirm which ones. I don’t require further details.
This request is intended to find out in general terms the extent to which the Met Police has accessed the call data of UK news organisation, something which I believe is a matter of legitimate public interest.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 54 –
The advice from a national perspective is:
As you are aware Freedom of Information is considered on an applicant and motive blind approach. However, a recent First Tier Tribunal titled Hepple v IC and Durham County Council (EA/2013/0168) covers the subject of motive blind:
“… We also bear in mind that it is frequently said that an information request should be considered without reference to the motive of the person making the request. That certainly ensures that focus is maintained on the fact that disclosure to a single requester is, effectively, disclosure to the world. But assessing an information request on this “motive blind” basis ought not to prevent us from considering the potential risk to safety posed by the requestor him/herself…”
The judgment can be read in full at the below link:
Following this judgment the CRU feel, when appropriate, the background of the applicant to establish the motive for a request can be taken into account.
In this case we have researched the internet and established that ************S40is the************S40, see below link:
S40
In this case we feel the motive for this request is as part of the ‘campaign’. The rationale for this is as a recent request submitted by an employee of the Press Gazette on the same subject and asking for the same information, but specifically relating to journalists, was recently deemed vexatious.
Responding to this Request
This request is asking whether each of the telephone numbers, which are identical to those submitted within case no 88/15 from a member of the same organisation, has had call data obtained by the MPS under RIPA between 1st January 2010 and 1st January 2015.
The ICO Guidance states that if a public authority has reason to believe that several different requesters are acting in concert as part of a campaign to disrupt an organisation then this can be taken into account when determining whether any of those requests a vexatious.
In this case and in addition to the points highlighted within the advice for case no 228/15 which is attached, there is evidence that this request is connected with the previous request as the applicant works for the same organisation, and this fact adds weight to the citing of Section 14(1) for this request.
Consideration also needs to be given to the fact that the request originates from the same organisation and it identical to a previous request, case no 88/15 refers. The ICO deems a request to be identical if both its wording and its scope precisely matches that of a previous request, which in this case it does.
Therefore the CRU recommends the citing of Section 14(1) Vexatious and 14(2) Repeated Request.
*** As always the decision as to whether Section 14(1) is engaged is a decision for
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 55 –
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.
<CRU Advice as above>
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 56 –
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox
Sent: 18 February 2015 13:55
Subject: CRU Ref No: 200/15 ************S40 - Comms data - Including 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.
Dear All,
With regards to CRU Ref No: 200/15 - Advice is at the end of the message.
Log Number:000200/15
Case worker:Sue Mason
Sent from: ************ S40
I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request information relating to your Force’s acquisition of communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers 2000, specifically I am requesting;
The number of times your force has requested communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The number times a request was rejected internally.
I request that the time period covered is 1st January 2012- 1st January 2015.
I further request that the information be broken down by either calendar year or financial year, whichever is most easily accessible to you.
Advice:
As per previous requests regarding comms data, there is no harm in disclosing the total number of comms data requested. The applicant has not asked for the information to be broken down any further.
IOCCO (Interception of Communications Commissioner) have now started to publish comms data in calendar year, and if forces publish their own data by financial year, the public would be able to work out how many RIPA requests were made over the time period of Jan-April, which would then start to
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 57 –
break down the information to low levels. We have very recently therefore changed our stance and have advised forces that they must only disclose the information in calendar year (not financial year as per our previous advice) to prevent this from happening.
However, the applicant has specifically asked for the time period 1st Jan 2012 - 1st Jan 2015 to be covered, which is just outside of a calendar year. We would therefore suggest that forces liaise with the applicant and tell him that he would receive the data up until 31st Dec 2014, but not for the 1st Jan 2015 as this is part of the next calendar year. The data for this one day will be exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) unless the applicant changes his time period requested
If forces have previously disclosed the information in calendar years then the applicant can be directed to the relevant link. Most forces have also previously disclosed the number of times a request was rejected internally.
As the request relates purely to acquisition of communications data by force, per year, there is no requirement for a partial NCND
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 19 February 2015 09:57 To: 'FOI' Subject: RE: CRU Ref No: 200/15 ************S40 - Comms data - Including 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.
Dear Martha
No worries, I think a lot of the forces are going to have this problem.
In which case, you do not hold the actual information for the financial year 2014/15 (as we are still in January) and you can apply Section 22 (Information intended for future publication) for the calendar year of 2014 and 2015 as IOCCO will be publishing the data in the future. As you are aware, Section 22 will require a PIT. It may be worth explaining to the applicant that the information will no longer be published by financial year
If the applicant comes back and says he wants the information from April 2014 to January 2015, this will be exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a), as you would not want to break the information down into lower than calendar year figures
Hope this helps Regards
Sue Mason 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
From: FOI [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 February 2015 14:25 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: RE: CRU Ref No: 200/15 ************S40 - Comms data - Including Advice
- 58 –
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 59 –
Hi Sue
Have tried to ring but line constantly busy. We have in the past given lines of data by financial year. I had provided the request with a link to a previous request that covers the last 5 financial years (see link below). However, he came back to states
‘As it shows the information up to the 2013/14 financial year we would still require any figures your force has for the 2014/15 year to fit with our previously specified end date. Therefore I would like to amend our request to apply to the 2014/2015 financial year.’
Given the change of stance you detail below, I am not sure how to proceed with this one now … ?
Best regards
Martha Robinson
Information Compliance Clerk
Information Compliance Unit
Professional Standards Department
Unit 20, Churchill Way
Sheffield 35A Business Park
Chapeltown
Sheffield
S35 2PY
Ext: ************S31
Tel ************S31
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 February 2015 13:55 Subject: CRU Ref No: 200/15 Nesbitt ‐ Comms data ‐ Including Advice
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 regards to CRU Ref No: 200/15 - Advice is at the end of the message.
Log Number:000200/15
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 60 –
Case worker:Sue Mason
Sent from: ************ S40
I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request information relating to your Force’s acquisition of communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers 2000, specifically I am requesting;
The number of times your force has requested communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The number times a request was rejected internally.
I request that the time period covered is 1st January 2012- 1st January 2015.
I further request that the information be broken down by either calendar year or financial year, whichever is most easily accessible to you.
Advice:
As per previous requests regarding comms data, there is no harm in disclosing the total number of comms data requested. The applicant has not asked for the information to be broken down any further.
IOCCO (Interception of Communications Commissioner) have now started to publish comms data in calendar year, ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ ************ S31We have very recently therefore changed our stance and have advised forces that they must only disclose the information in calendar year (not financial year as per our previous advice) to prevent this from happening.
However, the applicant has specifically asked for the time period 1st Jan 2012 - 1st Jan 2015 to be covered, which is just outside of a calendar year. We would therefore suggest that forces liaise with the applicant and tell him that he would receive the data up until 31st Dec 2014, but not for the 1st Jan 2015 as this is part of the next calendar year. The data for this one day will be exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) unless the applicant changes his time period requested
If forces have previously disclosed the information in calendar years then the applicant can be directed to the relevant link. Most forces have also previously disclosed the number of times a request was rejected internally.
As the request relates purely to acquisition of communications data by force, per year, there is no requirement for a partial NCND
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
********************************************************************************* This electronic message contains information from the Freedom of Information Unit which may be legally privileged and confidential. Any opinions expressed may be those of the individual and not necessarily the Freedom of Information Unit. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone +44 (0) 845 045 45 45 or email to [email protected] immediately. Please then delete this email and destroy any copies of it. All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to and from ACRO may be subject to monitoring. Replies to this email may be seen by employees other than the intended recipient. ********************************************************************************* Tackling child sexual exploitation is a priority for the Force and it is the responsibility of everyone to help spot the signs and say something. For more information visit www.southyorkshire.police.uk/spotthesigns
Tackling child sexual exploitation is a priority for the Force and it is the responsibility of everyone to help spot the signs and say something. For more information visit www.southyorkshire.police.uk/spotthesigns
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 62 –
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 19 February 2015 15:55 To: ' ([email protected])'; 'Nottinghamshire - FOI Mailbox ([email protected])'; 'Thames Valley Police ([email protected])' Subject: CASE NO 259/15 - ************S40 - RIPA - INITIAL 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
Dear All
With reference to the below request which you referred to us for guidance, having been submitted by ************S40 of the BBC:
1. Of all the authorisations and notifications Thames Valley Police made under RIPA 2000 for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime, or preventing disorder, please provide a breakdown of this information into subcategories relating to the nature of the potential crime/disorder involved. Please provide this information for a) 2013 and b) 2014.
We feel to retrieve all of the information will exceed the cost threshold as a manual search of all records will be required to establish the nature and sub-category of each crime/disorder.
Forces can issue a Section 12 refusal and as always as advice practitioners to engage with the applicant and invite them to refine their request if feasible to do so. If/when the applicant refines the request please come back to us for further advice.
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
The Metropolitan Police Service has received the below request submitted by ************S40 .
I request the following information concerning the Metropolitan Police's use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) towards journalists.
Of the following phone numbers, which has had call data obtained by the Metropolitan Police using RIPA?
************S40
The advice from a national perspective is:
This request is similar, i.e. asking for information relating to a specific telephone number asking which ones have had call data obtained by RIPA towards journalists, to case no 88/15. In addition, case no 217/15 also request the same information although it doesn’t mention journalists.
Responding to this Request
As you are no doubt aware a similar request was received by forces nationally earlier this year, case no 228/15 refers, and that request was deemed to be vexatious with regard to the disproportionate burden on the Police Service.
This request forms part of a series of requests on the same subject i.e. the police use of RIPA whilst carrying out surveillance on journalists. When citing Section 14 the exemption always relates to the subject of the request and not the individual making the request. In this case, the applicant hasn’t previously made any requests relating to this subject area, however as stipulated within ICO guidance a public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant. Therefore, the CRU recommends Section 14(1) for this case. In addition we strongly advise when responding to the applicant practitioners clearly articulate that the history of these types of requests and the burden they have on the Police Service generally was a huge factor in the decision making process.
*** As always the decision as to whether Section 14(1) is engaged is a decision for - 63 –
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 64 –
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.
<CRU Advice as above>
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
Date created: 19 February 2015 Caseworker: Heather Waller
The Metropolitan Police Service has received the below request submitted by ************S40.
I request the following information concerning the Metropolitan Police's use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) towards journalists.
Of the following phone numbers, which has had call data obtained by the Metropolitan Police using RIPA?
************S40
The advice from a national perspective is:
As you are aware Freedom of Information is considered on an applicant and motive blind approach. However, a recent First Tier Tribunal titled Hepple v IC and Durham County Council (EA/2013/0168) covers the subject of motive blind:
“… We also bear in mind that it is frequently said that an information request should be considered without reference to the motive of the person making the request. That certainly ensures that focus is maintained on the fact that disclosure to a single requester is, effectively, disclosure to the world. But assessing an information request on this “motive blind” basis ought not to prevent us from considering the potential risk to safety posed by the requestor him/herself…”
The judgment can be read in full at the below link:
Following this judgment the CRU feel, when appropriate, the background of the applicant to establish the motive for a request can be taken into account.
In this case we have researched the internet and established that this applicant is a journalist who************************ S4-, see below link:
************S40
Taking into account all of the above we feel the motive for this request is to ascertain whether forces will respond to his request in the same way similar requests have been responded to. In addition there is suspicion that the request has been submitted as
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 66 –
part of a ‘campaign’ as it is asking for the same information as a request which was recently deemed to be vexatious and was received from a journalistic background (case no 228/15 refers).
Responding to this Request
As stated above this request asks for the same information captured by case no 228/15. When citing Section 14 the exemption always relates to the subject to the request and not the individual making the request. In this case, taking into account the points raised within the background information, as there is suspicion the request may have been submitted as part of a campaign the CRU recommends Section 14(1) for this case.
When responding to the applicant we suggest practitioners clearly articulate that the motive and history of these types of request has been considered and is deemed a valid point for citing Section 14(1).
*** 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.
<CRU Advice as above>
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
Date created: 19 February 2015 Caseworker: Heather Waller
Thames Valley Police has received the below request submitted by ************S40.
Please provide information detailing the number of incidents whereby the use of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was used to identify journalistic sources by Thames Valley Police. In each case please specify the publication the journalist belonged to and the name of the journalist and/or position at the newspaper. Also provide the reason for the use of the power and the outcomes if any.
The advice from a national perspective is:
As you are aware Freedom of Information is considered on an applicant and motive blind approach. However, a recent First Tier Tribunal titled Hepple v IC and Durham County Council (EA/2013/0168) covers the subject of motive blind:
“… We also bear in mind that it is frequently said that an information request should be considered without reference to the motive of the person making the request. That certainly ensures that focus is maintained on the fact that disclosure to a single requester is, effectively, disclosure to the world. But assessing an information request on this “motive blind” basis ought not to prevent us from considering the potential risk to safety posed by the requestor him/herself…”
The judgment can be read in full at the below link:
Following this judgment the CRU feel, when appropriate, the background of the applicant to establish the motive for a request can be taken into account.
In this case the applicant has identified that he is ********************S40therefore we feel the motive for the request is to ascertain whether forces will respond to this request in the same way similar request have been responded to.
Responding to this Request
This request is asking for information relating to RIPA and journalistic sources, and falls under the new stance of issuing a Section 14(1) refusal. When citing Section 14 the exemption always relates to the subject to the request and not the individual making the request.
- 67 –
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
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 68 –
a valid point for citing Section 14(1).
*** 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.
<CRU Advice as above>
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
Date created: 19 February 2015 Caseworker: Heather Waller
Thames Valley Police has received the below request submitted by ************S40.
Returning to RIPA, you’ll have seen the IOCCO has released his report into RIPA investigations that shows 19 forces have used it to gain access to journalists’ records.
The report does not name the forces but given the Government’s signal that the current system has to change and there will be judicial oversight, can TVP please:
Confirm or deny if they are one of the 19 forces that has used RIPA to access information/records about journalists and who they contact
If it is a confirmation, how many cases
If it is a confirmation, is one of these cases the Murrer case
What is the breakdown amongst journalists – national, regional/local/freelances
Given the report and the Government’s statements about incoming judicial oversight, will TVP voluntarily halt any new RIPA applications and/or suspend current investigations where only officer approval has been given and put each case in front of a judge
Given the report and the Government’s statements, does TVP now accept the system it and other forces were working under was a flawed understanding of RIPA
What is TVP’s opinion of the need for its requests under RIPA to be overseen by a Judge
And if some or none of these questions are able to be answered, can we have a quote explaining why.
The advice from a national perspective is:
As you are aware Freedom of Information is considered on an applicant and motive blind approach. However, a recent First Tier Tribunal titled Hepple v IC and Durham County Council (EA/2013/0168) covers the subject of motive blind:
- 69 –
“… We also bear in mind that it is frequently said that an information request should be considered without reference to the motive of the person making the request. That certainly ensures that focus is maintained on the fact that disclosure to a single requester is, effectively, disclosure to the world. But assessing an information
Following this judgment the CRU feel, when appropriate, the background of the applicant to establish the motive for a request can be taken into account.
In this case the applicant has confirmed that he is a ************************S40 therefore we feel the motive for the request is to ascertain whether forces will respond to this request in the same way similar request have been responded to.
Responding to this Request
This request is asking for information relating to RIPA and journalistic sources, and falls under the new stance of issuing a Section 14(1) refusal. When citing Section 14 the exemption always relates to the subject to the request and not the individual making the request.
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).
*** 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.
<CRU Advice as above>
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
Cambridgeshire Constabulary North Yorkshire Police
Cheshire Constabulary Northumbria Police
City of London Police Nottinghamshire Police
Cleveland Police Police Service of Scotland
Derbyshire Constabulary Port of Dover Police
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary PSNI
Dorset Police South Wales Police
Durham Constabulary South Yorkshire Police
Dyfed Powys Police Staffordshire Police
Gloucestershire Constabulary Surrey Police
Hampshire Constabulary Sussex Police
Hertfordshire Constabulary Thames Valley Police
Humberside Police Warwickshire Police
Kent Police West Mercia Constabulary
Kent Police West Midlands Police
Lancashire Constabulary West Yorkshire Police
Lincolnshire Police Wiltshire Constabulary
Merseyside Police
have received the below request submitted by************, ************S40 with the BBC:
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.
The advice from a national perspective is:
As you are aware Freedom of Information is considered on an applicant and motive blind approach. However, a recent First Tier Tribunal titled Hepple v IC and Durham
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 72 –
County Council (EA/2013/0168) covers the subject of motive blind:
“… We also bear in mind that it is frequently said that an information request should be considered without reference to the motive of the person making the request. That certainly ensures that focus is maintained on the fact that disclosure to a single requester is, effectively, disclosure to the world. But assessing an information request on this “motive blind” basis ought not to prevent us from considering the potential risk to safety posed by the requestor him/herself…”
The judgment can be read in full at the below link:
Following this judgment the CRU feel, when appropriate, the background of the applicant to establish the motive for a request can be taken into account.
In this case the applicant has confirmed that ************S40 and she is asking for information which has been asked previously and relates to the correspondence submitted by police forces to the IOCCO for the Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry. The CRU feels the request falls under the new stance of issuing a Section 14(1) refusal. When citing Section 14 14 the exemption always relates to the subject to the request and not the individual making the request.
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).
*** 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.
<CRU Advice as above>
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
The Metropolitan Police Service has received the below request submitted by ************S40.
I request the following information concerning the Metropolitan Police's use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) towards journalists.
Of the following phone numbers, which has had call data obtained by the Metropolitan Police using RIPA?
07826 855 190
The advice from a national perspective is:
As you are aware Freedom of Information is considered on an applicant and motive blind approach. However, a recent First Tier Tribunal titled Hepple v IC and Durham County Council (EA/2013/0168) covers the subject of motive blind:
“… We also bear in mind that it is frequently said that an information request should be considered without reference to the motive of the person making the request. That certainly ensures that focus is maintained on the fact that disclosure to a single requester is, effectively, disclosure to the world. But assessing an information request on this “motive blind” basis ought not to prevent us from considering the potential risk to safety posed by the requestor him/herself…”
The judgment can be read in full at the below link:
Following this judgment the CRU feel, when appropriate, the background of the applicant to establish the motive for a request can be taken into account.
In this case we feel the motive for this request is as part of a ‘campaign’. The rationale for this is as a recent request submitted by the ***************S40 on
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 74 –
the same subject and asking for the same information, but specifically relating to journalists, was recently deemed vexatious.
Responding to this Request
As stated above this request asks for the same information captured by case no 228/15 and 273/15
The ICO Guidance states that if a public authority has reason to believe that several different requesters are acting in concert as part of a campaign to disrupt an organisation then this can be taken into account when determining whether any of those requests a vexatious.
In this case and in addition to the points highlighted within the advice for case no 228/15 which is attached, there is evidence that this request is connected with the previous requests submitted by members of press organisations and this fact adds weight to the citing of Section 14(1) for this request.
Consideration also needs to be given to the fact that the request originates from the same organisation and is identical to a previous request, case no 273/15 refers. The ICO deems a request to be identical if both its wording and its scope precisely matches that of a previous request, which in this case it does, although a different telephone number.
Therefore the CRU recommends the citing of Section 14(1) Vexatious and 14(2) Repeated Request.
*** 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.
<CRU Advice as above>
If you have any queries regarding this advice please contact the Central Referral Unit before sending your response to the applicant.
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 20 February 2015 11:58 To: 'Borland, Megan' Subject: RE: CRU Ref No: 200/15 ************S40 - Comms data - Including 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.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
Dear Megan
Although you have always previously given the data out in financial year, we would ask that you now start to give it out in calendar year, otherwise you will just be compounding the issue of being able to work out how many you have had in a 3 month period, year after year
Please do not disclose part of the year 2014/15. You can either give out the data for the whole of 2014 or you could apply Section 22 to the calendar year of 2014 and 2015, as IOCCO will be publishing the data in the future. As you are aware, Section 22 will require a PIT. It may also be worth explaining to the applicant that the information will no longer be published by financial year
If the applicant comes back and says he wants the information from April 2014 to January 2015, this will be exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a), as you would not want to break the information down into lower than calendar year figures
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further advice or want to discuss the issue further Regards
Sue Mason 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
From: Borland, Megan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 February 2015 15:28 To: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Subject: FW: CRU Ref No: 200/15 ************S40 - Comms data - Including Advice
- 75 –
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
Hi Sue,
Just a quick query about the below, North Wales Police have always released this data in fiscal year rather than calendar so will have to follow the same. However, are we ok to release part of the fiscal year 01/04/2014‐ 01/01/2015?
Thanks,
Megan
Megan Borland
Ymchwilydd Rhyddid Gwybodaeth/Freedom of Information Researcher
Uned Rhyddid Gwybodaeth a’r Cynllun Cyhoeddi/ Freedom of Information and Publication Scheme Unit
Prif Swyddog Gwybodaeth/ Chief Information Officer
From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 February 2015 13:55 Subject: CRU Ref No: 200/15 ************S40 - Comms data - Including Advice
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 regards to CRU Ref No: 200/15 - Advice is at the end of the message.
Log Number:000200/15
Case worker:Sue Mason
Sent from: ************ S40
I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request information relating to your Force’s acquisition of communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers 2000, specifically I am requesting;
The number of times your force has requested communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The number times a request was rejected internally.
I request that the time period covered is 1st January 2012- 1st January 2015.
I further request that the information be broken down by either calendar year or financial year,
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 77 –
whichever is most easily accessible to you.
Advice:
As per previous requests regarding comms data, there is no harm in disclosing the total number of comms data requested. The applicant has not asked for the information to be broken down any further.
IOCCO (Interception of Communications Commissioner) have now started to publish comms data in calendar year, ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ S31 We have very recently therefore changed our stance and have advised forces that they must only disclose the information in calendar year (not financial year as per our previous advice) to prevent this from happening.
However, the applicant has specifically asked for the time period 1st Jan 2012 - 1st Jan 2015 to be covered, which is just outside of a calendar year. We would therefore suggest that forces liaise with the applicant and tell him that he would receive the data up until 31st Dec 2014, but not for the 1st Jan 2015 as this is part of the next calendar year. The data for this one day will be exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) unless the applicant changes his time period requested
If forces have previously disclosed the information in calendar years then the applicant can be directed to the relevant link. Most forces have also previously disclosed the number of times a request was rejected internally.
As the request relates purely to acquisition of communications data by force, per year, there is no requirement for a partial NCND
********************************************************************************* This electronic message contains information from the Freedom of Information Unit which may be legally privileged and confidential. Any opinions expressed may be those of the individual and not necessarily the Freedom of Information Unit. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of the information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone +44 (0) 845 045 45 45 or email to [email protected] immediately. Please then delete this email and destroy any copies of it. All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to and from ACRO may be subject to monitoring. Replies to this email may be seen by employees other than the intended recipient. *********************************************************************************
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 78 –
Ni ddylid trin e-bost ar y rhyngrwyd fel dull diogel o gyfathrebu. Mae Heddlu Gogledd Cymru yn monitro'r holl negeseuon e-bost a drosglwyddir ar y rhyngrwyd yn ogystal â'u cynnwys. Dim ond er sylw'r sawl y'i cyfeiriwyd hi ato/ati y bwriedir y neges hon. Os ydych yn derbyn y neges hon mewn camgymeriad, gadewch i'r sawl a'i gyrrodd wybod a dilëwch hi oddi ar eich system. Gall defnyddio neu ddatgelu cynnwys y neges hon heb ganiatâd fod yn anghyfreithlon. Efallai nad yw'r farn a fynegir yn y ddogfen yn bolisi swyddogol. Diolch i chi am eich cydweithrediad. Heddlu Gogledd Cymru
Internet e-mail is not to be treated as a secure means of communication. North Wales Police monitor all Internet e-mail activity and content. This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. Please notify the sender if received in error and erase from your system. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be unlawful, Opinions expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your co-operation. North Wales Police
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
Attachments: ADVG_ADVICE TO ALL FORCES_20150218_135513.RTF
PROTECT - PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU
Dear Claire,
The following FOI request has been logged in the CRU. Advice is at the end of the message.
Log Number:000200/15
Case worker:Sue Mason
Logged with:Avon & Somerset Constabulary,Bedfordshire Police,Cambridgeshire Constabulary,Cheshire Constabulary,City of London Police,Cleveland Police,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,Humberside Police,Kent Police,Lancashire Constabulary,Lincolnshire Police,Merseyside Police,Metropolitan Police,Norfolk Constabulary,North Wales Police,North Yorkshire Police,North Yorkshire Police,Northamptonshire Police,Northumbria Police,Nottinghamshire Police,Police Service of Scotland,PSNI,South Wales Police,South Yorkshire Police,Staffordshire Police,Suffolk Constabulary,Surrey Police,Sussex Police,Thames Valley Police,Warwickshire Police,West Mercia Constabulary,West Midlands Police,West Yorkshire Police,Wiltshire Constabulary
Sent from: ************ S40
I am writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request information relating to your Force’s acquisition of communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers 2000, specifically I am requesting;
The number of times your force has requested communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The number times a request was rejected internally.
I request that the time period covered is 1st January 2012- 1st January 2015.
I further request that the information be broken down by either calendar year or financial year,
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
PROTECT – PRIVATE
- 80 –
whichever is most easily accessible to you.
Advice:
<CRU Advice as above>
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
PROTECT – PRIVATE
POLICE EYES ONLY.
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU.
