Page 588 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

Section 31(1) is a prejudice based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate
the harm that would be caused, as well as carrying out a public interest test (PIT) for both
subsections (1) and (3).
The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or
withholding the requested information for subsection (1) and to articulate the harm that
would be caused in confirming or denying that any information is held for subsection (3).
Section 31(1) Evidence of Harm
You have asked whether Superintendent Adrian Coombes from Essex Police notified the
MPS of certain events.
There is sufficient information within the public domain which confirms the sharing of
information by police forces and certain law enforcement agencies and partners. To confirm
what information has been shared and by whom, will affect the prevention and detection of
crime, which is the core function of the MPS. The disclosure of specific information will
affect the law enforcement and tactical approaches undertaken by the MPS.
Public Interest Test
Section 31(1) Public interest considerations favouring disclosure
Disclosing and confirming intelligence could promote public trust in providing transparency
and demonstrating openness and accountability into where the MPS spends public funds.
This transparency would provide a better awareness to the general public regarding this type
of sharing of information to prevent crime. Disclosure can aid accurate debate around the use
MPS resources and the MPS's
408,
approach to tackling and deterring this type of crime. This could empower individuals to
make more effective decisions about their own activities regarding criminal behaviour.
Section 31(1) Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure
Policing today is intelligence led and the MPS share information with other law enforcement
agencies as part of their investigative process. To disclose what intelligence was shared and
by whom (on a case by case basis) would identify tactical approaches used by police forces
and identify cases or persons of interest to the police. This could hinder the prevention and
detection of crime as well as undermine the partnership approach to investigations and law
enforcement.
Balancing Test
The MPS is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting
the communities we serve. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency policing
abilities, processes and techniques, there is a strong public interest in safeguarding the
integrity of the MPS.
It is therefore in our opinion, that the balancing test for full disclosure is not made out.
Section 31(3) - Evidence of Harm
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 MPS's ability to complete any future criminal investigations.
You have also asked for the details held of organisers for the stated illegal raves you referred
to above, and whether any of the events were organised by Every Decible Matters.
The release of such information, if it exists, would reveal policing tactics regarding who was
of interest to the police generally. This could be to the detriment of providing an efficient
policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.
Information disclosed under the Act is considered to be a release to the world as once the
information is published the public authority in this case the MPS has no control over what
use is made of that information. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant it could
be of use to those who seek to disrupt any police investigation as it would by a process of