Ucpi publication strategy 12092017

Security Classification: Disclosable under FOIA 2000: Force / Organisation: Author Date Created: Telephone: Implementation Date: Review Date: Authorised by:

Not protectively marked Yes NPCC Sherry Traquair 18/02/2016 02380 478922 07 March 2016 01 September 2017 NPCC Coordination Lead Andy Ward

Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) Freedom of Information Requests

NPCC Publication Strategy This document should form part of the overall NPCC communications strategy and should be read in conjunction with it.

Background to the Inquiry Following the Kennedy revelations in 2013, the media reported allegations in early 2011 of misconduct during undercover operations by a unit within the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) called the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). In October 2011 the MPS launched a review of the SDS under Operation Soisson. Following what was discovered during that review, together with further allegations made in the media, in February 2013 the MPS Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe ordered a wider review and full investigation. This is ongoing, is led by the Chief Constable of Derbyshire, Mr Mick Creedon QPM and in October 2013 the operational name was changed to Operation Herne. The scope of the review under Operation Herne has been expanded to embrace further allegations of misconduct, Chief Constable Creedon has since delivered four reports to the Commissioner: Report 1 - Use of Covert Identities was published in July 2013; Report 2 - Allegations of Peter Francis was published in March 2014; Report 3 - Special Demonstration Squad Reporting: Mentions of Sensitive Campaigns was published in July 2014; Report 4 - Operation Herne Update was delivered in February 2015 and had restricted circulation.

On 6th March 2014, the Home Secretary made a statement in the House of Commons in which she summarised some of the findings made by Mark Ellison QC and Operation Herne. She announced that she would be commissioning an external review into the role of the Home Office in the commissioning and work of the SDS. In a written statement to the House of Commons on 12 March 2015 the Home Secretary announced a Public Inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. She stated that the inquiry would “review practices in the use of undercover policing, establishing justice for the families and victims and making recommendations for future operations and police practice”.

Purpose 

To inquire into and report on undercover police operations conducted by English and Welsh police forces in England and Wales since 1968 and, in particular, to:



Investigate the role and the contribution made by undercover policing towards the prevention and detection of crime;



Examine the motivation for, and the scope of, undercover police operations in practice and their effect upon individuals in particular and the public in general;

The National Police Chiefs Council, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1A 0NN



Ascertain the state of awareness of undercover police operations of her Majesty’s Government;



Identify and assess the adequacy of the:

 

Justification, authorisation, operational governance and oversight of undercover policing; Selection, training, management and care of undercover police officers;



Identify and assess the adequacy of the statutory, policy and judicial regulation of undercover policing.

Detailed information concerning the inquiry can be found via the following direct web-link: https://www.ucpi.org.uk/faqs/ It was agreed by Chief Constables at National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) that in order to ensure a comprehensive and consistent approach to the initial and future anticipated Rule 9 requests and the calling of evidence before the inquiry, it would be necessary to put in place a national co-ordination capability. As a result, Andy Ward was appointed to take on all relevant responsibilities for that work on behalf of all Chief Officers. This work involves coordination on behalf of the NPCC Central Office, the National Undercover Working Group and 43 police forces of England and Wales, with the exception of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) who have individual status. The NPCC has been granted core participant status in the inquiry and as such has appointed its own leading counsel to represent NPCC. It is clear that this public inquiry will be a wide ranging and in depth examination of undercover policing that will affect all forces irrespective of whether a dedicated undercover unit existed or otherwise. It is for this reason, and the intended scope of scrutiny, that all forces are encouraged to work to a common standard, and to work together in the management of information which may be subject to this public inquiry.

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) The Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply to the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UPCI), however in keeping with the spirit of the freedom of information act, the UCPI will, as far as possible, consider requests for information in accordance with the principles of the Act, and will publish the transcripts of the public evidence on their website as soon as possible after a hearing. The inquiry recognises the sensitivity of some of the evidence being provided and may redact or withhold certain information which the chairman deems appropriate to withhold. It is worthy of note that the material accumulated during the course of the inquiry will become subject of FOI once it has concluded.

The Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation does provide the general public with an automatic right to request information from a public authority (PA). For the purposes of this Inquiry, the relevant PAs for the Policing sector will be the police forces in England and Wales, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and the NPCC the NUWG sits under the NPCC). It is important to note that any information held by a public authority for a business purpose regardless of its origins or author, will be subject to the legislation. It is mandated with the FOI Act that the information holder, receiving the request, will be solely responsible for decisions regarding disclosure. However, under Part IV of the Secretary of States Code of Practice, governed by section 45 of the legislation, there is a clearly defined requirement to consult with third parties who may be affected by any such disclosures.

Whilst it is recognised that both PSNI and PSOS are not subject to the inquiry, it is important that they are included within the FOI referral process as they are likely to hold information pertaining to other forces.

All FOI requests capturing information relating to undercover policing which include covert operations and surveillance activities are, until further notice, considered to be a mandatory referral to the NPCC Freedom of Information and Data Protection Unit (NPFDU) as per College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP), a process all chief officers are signed up to. Upon receipt of a referral, the NPFDU will ensure that the NPCC UCPI 2

coordinating team and stakeholders are consulted for a view on disclosure or retention of the requested information.

In addition, whilst the application of NCND will be strictly maintained wherever possible, it cannot be considered as a blanket approach in handling such requests and must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in line with public interest arguments. These collective views from the main stakeholders will be provided to the PA in receipt of the request in order that it can make a properly informed final decision which is based on a national corporate view and supplemented by their own local factors. It is important that each request is dealt with on a case by case basis.

In addition to the above, the NPCC FOI publication strategy has been formulated in order to allow any public authorities to take advantage, when appropriate, of the exemption within FOI legislation found at Section 22.

Section 22 exempts information from disclosure which is intended for future publication. Section 22 may be engaged when there is an intention to publish the information requested at the time of receipt. Without this intention, Section 22 may not be used and authorities may not take the decision to publish the information after the request for information is received. The key to it is that the decision to publish must have been made prior to any request for the information being received prior to 15 March 2016.

The NPCC decision to produce this intention to publish data means that the Section 22 exemption is engaged for any PA wishing to apply that exemption. That decision does not have to have been made by the PA receiving the request, but can be made by any party who also holds the same information. This publication strategy is therefore transferable between all relevant parties covered by the public inquiry.

The identified benefits of engaging this exemption are that dealing with requests for certain data whilst the Inquiry is ongoing can be complex and resource intensive. Also, random piecemeal disclosures may in fact damage the inquiry process and affect the strategic aims of the inquiry and Operation Herne. This can manifest itself in many ways but can include disclosures which enable offenders to evade undercover tactics in the future and the raising of unfounded concerns by victims, witnesses and even offenders and their families. There will also be an appetite from the media to gain exclusive knowledge and data, via FOI. The application of this exemption, under Section 22 of the FOI Act also allows a sterile period, prior to publication by the NPCC / forces in accordance with the intended publication listed at appendix A and appendix B of this strategy.

Where all the stakeholders are able to consult, ensuring the final publication document meets the full needs of the public and the authorities involved. This coordinated approach to publication mitigates any harm that may be caused by random incomplete information entering the public domain.

What is critical to the success of this strategy is that any rationale for not complying with the section 22 approach is recorded so that a precedent is not set which undermines other PAs ability to engage the exemption. This is expected to take shape of some overriding, compelling, public interest factor, specific to an individual request, as the exemption itself is subject to a public interest test and such matters must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The NPCC intend to publish interim and final reports in the future to include information on costs, resources, findings and recommendations relating to matters falling within the remit of the inquiry. Individual forces may also decide to publish material. If so, a decision must be established prior to the receipt of an FOI request. Appendix B is a nonexhaustive of the type of information you may wish to consider for future publication. The first table, Appendix A, is information the NPCC will undertake to publish during the inquiry.

It is unlikely that any information will be released under FOIA that would be likely to prejudice individual undercover officers (UCOs), ongoing police investigations or cases, or any information that would reveal policing tactics or methodology. As a result, a number of exemptions are likely to be engaged where such disclosures would impact on Section 23 Information supplied by security bodies, Section 24 National Security, Section 30 Investigations, Section 31 Law Enforcement, Section 38 Health & Safety and Section 40 Personal Information. Careful consideration must also be given to the ‘mosaic’ effect whereby they overlap or linking of strands of information can provide a fuller picture and thereby present an increase in risk.

3

Information may be disclosed through carefully managed media releases as and when necessary with the approval of the NPCC Lead and in consultation with the NPCC communications team.

You may also wish to consider S21 Information available by other means, for any information already published by a Public Authority or the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) at the time a request is received.

Data Protection Act (DPA) In addition to FOI requests, a relevant PA may also receive a request under subject access for personal information under the DPA. The main difference between this and FOI is that a release of personal information is not a release to the world in general. Although it is impossible to prevent what a data subject may do with their information, the information itself is also subject to a range of exclusions to disclosure, primarily law enforcement. As with FOI, the ultimate decision on disclosure will lay with the individual data controller, but in contrast to FOI, the personal information may not be held by all PAs involved in the operation.

Whilst there is no formal referral process for DPA requests, PAs are encouraged to refer such requests to both the NPCC lead and the NPCC DP Officer who will be in a position to provide corporate advice and direction on disclosure in conjunction with other relevant stakeholders. This is particularly relevant to any DPA request that may have any link to undercover policing during the lifetime of the UCPI, especially when considering the potential impact on individual UCOs, ongoing investigations or cases and in consideration of the ‘mosaic’ effect (see above).

As the information under DPA is of a personal nature it is highly likely that certain subjects may seek to publicise their involvement in the inquiry, especially if there is a sense of injustice. It is therefore important that local media teams are briefed on any DPA disclosure, by their own PA, who will then be responsible for notifying NPCC Communications.

4

Appendix A - Information held by the NPCC Type Of Information Financial Information.

Staffing Levels.

Communications

Relevant Material Total cost to NPCC for the Inquiry/ investigation.

Publication Strategy

Legal costs.

Known costs and claims to be published annually by financial year commencing 01 May 2017.

Staff travel and Expense claims.

(Andy Ward)

Number of police and staff engaged on the coordination team.

To be published by financial year commencing 01 May 2017.

Details of contracted staff or consultants.

(Andy Ward)

Key communications between NPCC coordination team and all stakeholders.

Releases and communications updates issued.

Key communications between Op Herne and stakeholders

Identify and publish Senior staff names.

Position Statement

Subject to Liaison with MPS. (Nicola Growcott)

Correspondence

NPCC submission to UCPI (Rule 9).

Published by UCPI (redacted)

Correspondence including letters and emails

As and when applied for under FOI and after due consideration regarding the content and any applicable exemptions.

(Sherry Traquair)

5

Appendix B - Information held by England & Wales forces (Force Template) Type Of Information.

Financial Information

Relevant Material.

Total cost to force incurred by Inquiry.

Publication Strategy.

Known costs to be published by financial year.

Legal costs.

Staff travel and Expense claims.

Staffing levels

Number of police and staff engaged on the Inquiry / Investigation team.

Details of contracted staff or consultants.

Investigations

Consideration given to release total number off staff engaged by financial year.

Number of police and staff engaged on Force Inquiry / Investigation team.

Identify and publish Senior staff names.

Force submissions to UCPI (Rule 9).

Subject to Liaison with NPCC coordination team.

Published by UCPI (redacted).

Media Correspondence

Communication and media strategy.

Publish live communication releases.

Reports

Any other interim report concerning specific strands within the remit of the inquiry

Publish at regular intervals or at conclusion of Inquiry.

Policies

Relevant Force policies suitable for publication.

Publish from outset.

Version

Date

Authorised By (Name and Position)

1.2

07/03/2016

NPCC Lead Andy Ward

1.3

17/03/2016

NPCC Lead Andy Ward

1.4

1.5

01/09/2016

01/09/2017

NPCC Lead Andy Ward

NPCC Lead Andy Ward

6

Signature