Should Met police refuse FOI request for accident charges?

[CoolHands]

I submitted a FOI request to see if the driver of a car involved in an accident was facing any charges as a result of the accident. I gave specific info of date, time, reg number and driver name to help them find the specific incident. It was a public incident reported in newspapers. I then asked:

coolhands said:

Can you tell me, is the driver of the vehicle facing any charges
relating to the collision, and if so what the charge(s) are?

They have refused the FOI request because they are saying it is exempt information:

MET police said:

Section 17(4) of the Act provides:

(4) A public authority is not obliged to make a statement under subsection
(1)(c) or (3) if, or to the extent that, the statement would involve the
disclosure of information which would itself be exempt information.

The way they have answered is not very clear, and I think they are saying it is due to it being Personal Information (which is exempt information) as written later in their response (this is the exact way they have written it):

MET police said:

Section 40(5) - Personal Information/Absolute Exemption

My question to you lot is - do you think this is right? Surely any charges that are brought in regard of a criminal act are public? ie not exempt due to Personal Information. Otherwise we'd never know who was / has / is going to be charged.

What do you think?

edit

according to this https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documen... it all depends on whether the data is 'personal' as to whether it should be exempt.

ICO said:

Is the information personal data?
13. The first step is to determine whether the requested
information constitutes personal data, as defined by the DPA. If
it is not personal data, then section 40 cannot apply. While in
many cases it will be clear whether the information is personal
data, there will be other cases, particularly where individuals
are not directly referred to by name, where it is necessary to
consider the terms of the definition carefully. Information is still
personal data even if it does not refer to individuals by name,
provided that it meets the definition of personal data in the
DPA.

Final edit - if I remove the drivers name so as to make it impersonal, ie 'is the driver of vehicle XYZ facing charges as a result of an accident on ABC?' would that need to be answered do you think?

Edited by CoolHands on Tuesday 1st September 17:38

[FurryExocet]

They are correct, they can't release information like that, as it is personal. If it relates to an incident that you were involved in, then your best port of call would be the Officer in charge, they may pass the information on to you.

[tapereel]

If the person involved is facing charges then the information you seek will be available by other means as courts are public.

It is quite right that the FoI Act has provision within it to prevent nosey-Parkers using it to get info they have no business having. You will get to know about the fate of this driver the same time the rest of the world does.

[CoolHands]

tapereel said:

If the person involved is facing charges then the information you seek will be available by other means as courts are public.

It is quite right that the FoI Act has provision within it to prevent nosey-Parkers using it to get info they have no business having. You will get to know about the fate of this driver the same time the rest of the world does.

and what if that's never? If they don't charge there's no notice saying there's no charge, there's just nothing. So you'd never know. If you don't like FOI move to China.

[PorkInsider]

tapereel said:

If the person involved is facing charges then the information you seek will be available by other means as courts are public.

It is quite right that the FoI Act has provision within it to prevent nosey-Parkers using it to get info they have no business having. You will get to know about the fate of this driver the same time the rest of the world does.

Totally agree with this.

[tapereel]

CoolHands said:

tapereel said:

If the person involved is facing charges then the information you seek will be available by other means as courts are public.

It is quite right that the FoI Act has provision within it to prevent nosey-Parkers using it to get info they have no business having. You will get to know about the fate of this driver the same time the rest of the world does.

and what if that's never? If they don't charge there's no notice saying there's no charge, there's just nothing. So you'd never know. If you don't like FOI move to China.

If there is no charge then they don't have any information that they can release to you.
If you want to use FoI read the Act.

[marshalla]

tapereel said:

CoolHands said:

tapereel said:

If the person involved is facing charges then the information you seek will be available by other means as courts are public.

It is quite right that the FoI Act has provision within it to prevent nosey-Parkers using it to get info they have no business having. You will get to know about the fate of this driver the same time the rest of the world does.

and what if that's never? If they don't charge there's no notice saying there's no charge, there's just nothing. So you'd never know. If you don't like FOI move to China.

If there is no charge then they don't have any information that they can release to you.
If you want to use FoI read the Act.

And even if there is a charge, it may be a police decision which will be over-ruled by CPS at a later stage. Charging does not always lead to prosecution, and cases can be dropped during court proceedings.

Release of information about a charging decision may cause problems because of the public's "no smoke without fire" attitude and complete inability to understand how the system works - much like their inability to understand what FOI is meant to be used for and why it is different from DPA.

[tapereel]

marshalla said:

tapereel said:

CoolHands said:

tapereel said:

If the person involved is facing charges then the information you seek will be available by other means as courts are public.

It is quite right that the FoI Act has provision within it to prevent nosey-Parkers using it to get info they have no business having. You will get to know about the fate of this driver the same time the rest of the world does.

and what if that's never? If they don't charge there's no notice saying there's no charge, there's just nothing. So you'd never know. If you don't like FOI move to China.

If there is no charge then they don't have any information that they can release to you.
If you want to use FoI read the Act.

And even if there is a charge, it may be a police decision which will be over-ruled by CPS at a later stage. Charging does not always lead to prosecution, and cases can be dropped during court proceedings.

Release of information about a charging decision may cause problems because of the public's "no smoke without fire" attitude and complete inability to understand how the system works - much like their inability to understand what FOI is meant to be used for and why it is different from DPA.

the information about pending court actions are exempted from release

[CoolHands]

marshalla said:

tapereel said:

CoolHands said:

tapereel said:

If the person involved is facing charges then the information you seek will be available by other means as courts are public.

It is quite right that the FoI Act has provision within it to prevent nosey-Parkers using it to get info they have no business having. You will get to know about the fate of this driver the same time the rest of the world does.

and what if that's never? If they don't charge there's no notice saying there's no charge, there's just nothing. So you'd never know. If you don't like FOI move to China.

If there is no charge then they don't have any information that they can release to you.
If you want to use FoI read the Act.

And even if there is a charge, it may be a police decision which will be over-ruled by CPS at a later stage. Charging does not always lead to prosecution, and cases can be dropped during court proceedings.

Release of information about a charging decision may cause problems because of the public's "no smoke without fire" attitude and complete inability to understand how the system works - much like their inability to understand what FOI is meant to be used for and why it is different from DPA.

"If there is no charge then they don't have any information that they can release to you."

tapereel the lack (or not) of charge is not the reason the information has not been released. If you want to comment learn to read.

marshalla you seem to be talking out your hat. For you and others who like to make stuff up, here's a named person who has been charged with a crime:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34120946

Edited by CoolHands on Tuesday 1st September 23:03

[marshalla]

CoolHands said:

marshalla you seem to be talking out your hat. For you and others who like to make stuff up, here's a named person who has been charged with a crime:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34120946

That one has been through the system and made it as far as the door of the court - which is my point. You are asking about a police charging decision, which is only the start of the process. I suggest you read CPS guidance on the charging process in order to understand why it is not a good idea to disclose charging status until the court process has begun.

[tapereel]

CoolHands said:

marshalla said:

tapereel said:

CoolHands said:

tapereel said:

If the person involved is facing charges then the information you seek will be available by other means as courts are public.

It is quite right that the FoI Act has provision within it to prevent nosey-Parkers using it to get info they have no business having. You will get to know about the fate of this driver the same time the rest of the world does.

and what if that's never? If they don't charge there's no notice saying there's no charge, there's just nothing. So you'd never know. If you don't like FOI move to China.

If there is no charge then they don't have any information that they can release to you.
If you want to use FoI read the Act.

And even if there is a charge, it may be a police decision which will be over-ruled by CPS at a later stage. Charging does not always lead to prosecution, and cases can be dropped during court proceedings.

Release of information about a charging decision may cause problems because of the public's "no smoke without fire" attitude and complete inability to understand how the system works - much like their inability to understand what FOI is meant to be used for and why it is different from DPA.

"If there is no charge then they don't have any information that they can release to you."

tapereel the lack (or not) of charge is not the reason the information has not been released. If you want to comment learn to read.

marshalla you seem to be talking out your hat. For you and others who like to make stuff up, here's a named person who has been charged with a crime:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34120946

Edited by CoolHands on Tuesday 1st September 23:03

...and that information on charging has been announced/published by the police and CPS. That means if they were asked for it under FoI before it was released they would have been able to refuse it and that refusal could have been absolute if they got it right.

[Bigends]

If we're only talking about traffic matters here - unless the offending driver was arrested for any offences - its likely they will have been summonsed to court rather than charged

[Eclassy]

The truth is the police (Met in my example) can do whatever they want.

I know of a case where they have refused to release information requested by Subject Access Request 21 months ago. Not an official refusal with reasons just a "we are not giving it yo you, tough"

You can complain to the ICO but sadly it is an organisation with all bark but no teeth. The only way you'll get any joy is by taking it to the courts. They are well aware that 99% of people will not make this move so they get away with it time and time again.

[anonymous-user]

Yes, that's the truth. Here's Kent police doing "whatever they want" and the ICO "having no teeth".

https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/enforcement/k...

[Eclassy]

^^^^

I am a bit disappointed that you have had to quote a story from March 2014 to 'prove' the ICO have some clout. You are usually better at defending the police

Please see link below
http://www.foi.directory/featured/met-police-foi-r...

The only punishment available for the ICO is financial sanction which is paid by the taxpayer and This financial sanction also only happens after multiple breaches of the DPA. Even after they are 'punished' they just go back and do the same.

We got some movement (letter saying we have found your information)after contacting the ICO in March 2014 (incidentally the same month they paid a "whopping" amount of money for breaching the DPA). But here we are 18 months later still without the requested personal info.

A judge will decide in due course.

[anonymous-user]

Its date were sufficient to show your generalised statements were both wrong.