Page 589 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

elimination, enable them to identify whether specific people or groups have or have not been
subject of a police investigation. This would lead to an increase of harm to either the
investigation itself or the subject of the investigation. To release details as to whether specific
individuals, groups or events have or have not been investigated would enable any member of
the public to define and identify who or who is not of interest to the MPS.
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.
Section 31(3) Factors favouring confirmation or denial
By confirming or denying whether information is held would enable the public to have a
better understanding of the type of events and individuals the police are focussing their
resources on, in order to disrupt and deter such events from taking place, in line with their
law enforcement role.
Better public awareness may lead to more information from the public about individuals who
they believe may be linked to organising illegal raves, thereby providing intelligence to
reduce crime.
Section 31(3) Factors against confirmation or denial
By confirming or denying that the requested information exists, law enforcement would be
compromised which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime of this
nature would be committed, and individuals would be placed at risk. This would result in
further risks to the public and consequently require the use of more MPS resources.
Disclosure of information, if it exists would provide valuable intelligence into the public
domain, which would be useful to criminals captured by this request, in that they can take
steps to evade apprehension and prosecution, thereby continuing with criminal behaviour.
This will directly affect the law enforcement role of the MPS.
Balance Test - Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would undermine individuals'
confidence in
409,
helping the MPS and would furthermore impact on the trust of witnesses in making
statements in the future.
Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental affect reducing the quality of
information the MPS receives and consequently compromise any ongoing or future similar
investigations. Therefore, I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the
requested information, if it exists, far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.
However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that
would meet your request exists or does not exist.
Section 40(5) - Personal Information / Absolute Exemption
You have asked for personal information about individuals attributed to Every Decible
Matters. To
confirm or deny whether personal information exists in response to your request could
publicly reveal information about an individual or individuals, thereby breaching the right to
privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). When confirming or
denying that information is held would breach an individual's rights under the DPA, Section
40(5) of the Act becomes an absolute exemption, and there is no requirement for me to
provide evidence of the prejudice that would occur, or to conduct a public interest test.
The MPS is unable to confirm and unable to deny whether the information in relation to this
request is held.
To ensure you understand why this response is necessary I have provided excerpts from the
Information commissioner’s office (ICO):
The Duty to Confirm or Deny