Full FOI response on Trident questions

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010010005130

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 27/01/2010 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/01/2010. I note you seek access to the following information:

1. How many cases are investigated by operation trident each year in London? Would it be possible to get this for three or four years?
2 Could i get a break down of which areas (london boroughs)these cases come from - in other words how many cases per borough in each year?
3. If this is a problem, would it be possible to find out how many crimes operation trident is investigating in Hackney?
4. What is the budget for operation trident?
5. How many police officers does it employ?

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within the Specialist Crime Directorate (SCD8) - Trident Operational Command Unit.

Trident investigates all non-fatal shootings within London irrespective of the ethnicity of the victim or suspect.

Trident also investigates fatal shootings occurring solely within the black community.

Trident's proactive operations continue to generate significant arrests and gun seizures.
As a result of these operations, Trident officers have recovered 89 illegal firearms and disrupted 101 criminal networks so far this financial year (2009/10).
Trident's Community Engagement Team works closely with communities within the Trident hotspot boroughs to tackle gun-enabled crime.
The unit provides an opportunity for the police and the community to work together in preventing, detecting and combating gun related criminality.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

It has been decided to:
disclose answers to questions numbered 1, 2, 4 & 5 in full;
fully exempt question number 3 pursuant to the provisions of section 30 of the Act.

At question 1 you asked:
How many cases are investigated by operation trident each year in London? Would it be possible to get this for three or four years?
The MPS response is:
In 2006 the MPS recorded 268 Trident incidents.
In 2007 the MPS recorded 288 Trident incidents.
In 2008 the MPS recorded 233 Trident incidents.
In 2009 the MPS recorded 348 Trident incidents.

At question 2 you asked:
Could i get a break down of which areas (london boroughs)these cases come from - in other words how many cases per borough in each year?
The MPS response is:
Please see attached document at the end of this email. (Blood and Property: I am attempting to put a chart in blogger but it's not as straight forward as I was hoping but these figures should be up on the site by Monday.)

At question 3 you asked:
how many crimes operation trident is investigating in Hackney?
The MPS response is:
Releasing the number of ongoing Trident investigations in Hackney would provide knowledge of the level of MPS activity in that area.
Please see below for full details and the Harm/Public Interest Test.

At question 4 you asked:
What is the budget for operation trident?
The MPS response is:
The budget for Trident (2008-2009) is £27,548,944.

At question 5 you asked:
How many police officers does it employ?
The MPS response is:
Trident currently have 359 officers in post.


how many crimes operation trident is investigating in Hackney?
The MPS response is:
Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested. This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions, which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

I have considered your request for information within the provisions set out by the Act. Where I have been unable to provide the requested information to you, I have explained my decision in accordance with Section 17 of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

I must inform you that details of any ongoing investigations by Trident in Hackney (question 3), has been fully exempted pursuant to the provisions of Sections 30(1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a) of the Act.

Section 30 (1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a) of the Act provides: Investigations

Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities (1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-

(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained-
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,

(b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.
(c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.
(2) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if-
(a) it was obtained or recorded by the authority for the purposes of its functions relating to-
(i) investigations falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b),
(ii) criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct,
(iii) investigations (other than investigations falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b)) which are conducted by the authority for any of the purposes specified in section 31(2) and either by virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative or by virtue of powers conferred by or under any enactment, or
(iv) civil proceedings which are brought by or on behalf of the authority and arise out of such investigations.

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested and concerned applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure, including those who could use the information to gain an advantage over the MPS in current or future investigations, through the understanding of its investigative processes or taskings.

Investigations involving firearms are highly emotive and the manner in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

The MPS does not generally disclose information regarding ongoing investigations except through our Directorate of Public Affairs to the media. This is so potential witnesses are not discouraged to come forward and provide statements in relation to current/unresolved investigations.
Information of this nature needs to be treated with extreme sensitivity, as it could have a detrimental effect on an open investigation and the operational effectiveness of the MPS and it's ability to fulfil its core function of law enforcement.
It also has the potential to endanger the health and safety of specific individuals.

Under Section 30 (1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information relating to investigations where its release would, or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon investigations and the prosecution of offenders. This exemption can be applied following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT).

The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

Public Interest Test

The public interest is not what interests the public, but what will be of greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may compromise the service's ability to fulfil its core function of law enforcement or jeopardize any possible future criminal investigation.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Accountability

Disclosure of this information would enlighten members of the public as to the action taken by the MPS in these type of incidents. This may go some way to promoting awareness and accountability, where expenditure of public funds is concerned and would reinforce the MPS's commitment to openness and transparency.

Public Debate

Release of this information would assist in any public debate on the MPS's action in these investigations.
The release of this information would demonstrate the willingness of the MPS to be open and transparent with the public showing what procedures and investigations are carried out.

Accountability for Public Funds

Where public funds are being spent, there is a significant public interest in making information available that would demonstrate the way in which resources are allocated. In this case, release of the requested information would demonstrate the way in which the MPS allocates resources in investigating these incidents.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Investigations

Information relating to ongoing investigations will rarely be disclosed under the Act and only where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure.
It is the Association of Chief Police Officers approach that such information will rarely be disclosed.
Whilst such information may be released in order to service a 'core policing purpose' - to prevent or detect crime, or to protect life and property - it would only be disclosed following a Freedom of Information request if there are strong public interest considerations favouring disclosure.

Release of this information may adversely affect public safety if the criminal fraternity/less law abiding individuals are provided with a tactical advantage over the MPS. It would allow individuals to avoid specific locations during any ongoing MPS operations and target other locations for potential victims.

This information that relates to current investigations by the MPS which facilitates the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders and the administration of justice and could endanger the safety of individuals if it were to be released.

Confidence in the Police Service

The disclosure of some of this information to the public by the MPS would undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS, and would furthermore impact on the trust of witnesses in making statements in the future.

Balancing Test

On balance if disclosed, the release of this material - under the Act - which relates to ongoing investigations, cannot be justified. The public's interest would not be served in releasing this specific type of information if it could compromise these or any future policing investigation.

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh disclosing this information.

Please find attached a breakdown of recorded Trident incidents by London Borough 2006-2009. ((Blood and Property: I am attempting to put a chart in blogger but it's not as straight forward as I was hoping but these figures should be up on the site by Monday.)