Mr Jones ‘requestxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx'

1st October 2014

Our Reference: FOI 031/14

 

Dear Mr Jones

RE: Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request

I write in response to your Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA) that was transferred to the College of Policing on the 1 September 2014. I note from your request that you seek the following information from the College of Policing:

 ‘…1) I would like a description of the 'one off event held in January' which the Home Office identifies, together with any material used, whether in printed or digital form, such as hand-outs, any other documents and any digital presentations made.

2) Please provide a list of the SMPs and any other persons who attended the 'one off event in January' whether as participants in the event or as trainers or facilitators, etc..

3) Please provide a copy of any material prepared by the College or on its behalf for future use in training SMPs, (which can be taken to include familiarisation, seminars, discussion groups etc, whether solely for SMPs or involving others).

4) Please provide a copy of any guidance provided by the College to SMPs, police pension authorities or other bodies or organisations concerning the training of SMPs…’

Decision:Following receipt of your request for information, searches were conducted to locate any information relevant to your request.  

In accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the Act, I can confirm that the College of Policing does hold

information that is relevant to your request. For ease of reference, I have provided a quick

reference table below which details the relevant documentation located and the decision applied

to each.

No: Document Title Disclosed?Y/N/Partial

Exemption Applied

1 Welcome Letter Y NA2 Agenda Y NA3 Questions for the Q&A Panel Partial s40(2) – Personal Data4 Morning Case Study: Police

Medical Appeal Board Report N s40(2) – Personal Data

5 Mr Nicholas Wirz Presentation: Supporting Materials

Y NA

6 Speaker Biographies Partial s40(2) – Personal Data 7 SMP Report: Morning Case

StudyN s40(2) – Personal Data

8 Afternoon Case Study – Instructions and FMA findings

N s40(2) – Personal Data

Your attention is drawn to Annex A of this letter, which provides full details of the decision to withhold some of the requested material identified above.

Complaints Rights:

Your attention is drawn to the Annex B, which details your right of complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Ms M Knox

Corporate Governance Unit College of Policing www.college.police.ukRegistered address: College of Policing Ltd, Leamington Road, Ryton-on-Dunsmore, Coventry CV8 3EN. Registered number: 8235199

Annex A:Reasons for Refusal Notice

For ease of reference, the below table summarizes the documentation subject to exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (or ‘FoIA 2000’).

No: Document Title Disclosed?Y/N/Partial

Exemption Applied

3 Questions for the Q&A Panel Partial s40(2) – Personal Data4 Morning Case Study: Police

Medical Appeal Board Report N s40(2) – Personal Data

6 Speaker Biographies Partial s40(2) – Personal Data 7 SMP Report: Morning Case

StudyN s40(2) – Personal Data

8 Afternoon Case Study – Instructions and FMA findings

N s40(2) – Personal Data

Documents 4, 7 and 8 share the same harm considerations, therefore, this refusal notice will consider the three documents together. Document 6 will be dealt with separately.

Documents 3, 4, 7 and 8;

Morning Case Study: Police Medical Appeal Board Report SMP Report: Morning Case Study Afternoon Case Study – Instructions and FMA findings

The above documentation provides case studies on real-life police service generated Occupational Health (OH) case studies. The case studies were referenced to by the training programme to encourage discussion, debate around the themes raised by each case in order to inform the training that was provided on the training day itself.

Whilst some personal identifiers were removed from the case studies (which rendered them suitably anonymised for the closed audience of practitioners), the redactions made did not go far enough to render the case studies completely anonymous to those outside of this forum and certainly not for release to the wider world, in which any disclosure under the FoIA 2000 seeks to ensure.

To confirm, the information contained within these documentation solely consists of both personal data1 and sensitive personal data2 regarding police personnel who have previously presented medical conditions to police service OH advisors. The information is descriptive in detail and includes such details as: the specific medical conditions review, brief medical history of the patient, the symptoms presented by each case, the underlining causes of the symptoms / medical condition, the professional role of patient, how the conditions are impacting upon the patient and their ability to fulfil their

current duties, and the original OH advisor’s review of the cases in question.

The above information, if released, would constitute the release of sensitive personal data pertaining to those who are already in a vulnerable position in terms of the state of their health and the impact their conditions are having on their career. This information was imparted to dedicated OH advisors under a strict duty of confidentiality and on the understanding that this information will not be disclosed outside of the patient / advisor / line manager relationship. Further, it is The College’s view that there would be no legitimate expectation that this information would be released in a format that would clearly identify the subjects themselves.

It is worth noting at this stage that whilst the disclosure of the information to the closed audience of dedicated medical practitioners is, in the College’s view, protected by the engaging of s333 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (or ‘DPA 1998’), the disclosure of the same information to the world via FoIA 2000 far extends the reach and applicability of this exemption in this regard.

Normally the College of Police would seek the permission to release third party details under the FoIA 2000, in this case it is quite clear that the release of this

1 As defined by s1(1) of the Data Protection Act 19982 As defined by s2 of the Data Protection Act 1998, namely s2(e) (‘In this Act “sensitive personal data” means personal data consisting of information as to…his physical or mental health or condition’)3 s33: Research, history and statistics

information would be significantly damaging and distressing to the data subjects in question as it pertains to sensitive medical information and the professional assessment thereof (which may, in turn, be a further determent to that person(s) if disclosed to the wider world).

It is here that the College of Policing considers that re-identification of the anonymised information is key as to whether the release of information would be a breach of the Data Protection Principles4, namely Principle 1. The College refers to the ICO’s Code of Practice on Anonymisation,5 which states that:

‘…the concept of…‘anonymise’… is not straightforward because individuals can be identified in a number of different ways. This can include direct identification, where someone is explicitly identifiable from a single data source… and indirect identification, where two or more data sources need to be combined for identification to take place…’

The College is of the view that the case studies would straddle both considerations dependent upon the reader in question. For example, the data subjects could quite clearly be identified from that information by those who are aware of the specific cases in question, be that the person themselves, their colleagues, line manager, DR and family member, etc. Indeed, the ICO states in the same guidance that:‘...The risk of re-identification posed by making anonymised data available to those with particular personal knowledge cannot be ruled out, particularly where someone might learn something ‘sensitive’ about another individual – if only by having an existing suspicion confirmed…’

In terms of considerations around indirect identification, it is here that the College is further reminded of the fact that the disclosure of information under the FoIA 2000 is a publication to the world at large - there is no restriction on the further disclosure or use of the data and no guarantee that it will be kept secure. Therefore, the actions of the ‘determined individual’ to use this information to seek out further information or

4 Data Protection Act 1998, schedule 1.5 http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guidance_index/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/

Practical_application/anonymisation-codev2.pdf

amalgamate this information with other information already held to identify the individuals referenced to in the case studies cannot be ignored. These factors together with the high level of risk to the individuals should re-identification occur, are relevant factors to determine whether there would be a breach of Principle 1 if this information was released to the world. The College is reminded of the ICO’s Codes of Practice (referred to above) that states that ‘…One example might be health data, where, although there may be no obvious motivation for trying to identify the individual that a particular patient ’episode’ relates to, the degree of embarrassment or anxiety that re-identification could cause could be very high. Therefore, the anonymisation techniques used to protect data should reflect this. In reality though, data with the potential to have a high impact on an individual is most likely to attract a ‘motivated intruder’.

It is for the above reasons that the College of Policing take the view that the release of this information will not be fair or lawful and does not satisfy any relevant conditions within Schedules 2 and 3 of the DPA 1998. Further, the College of Policing struggles to find a pressing social need which determines that the release of this information would be in ‘…accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others…’6 [emphasis added] In the absence of this overriding pressing social need, the College of Policing finds that the disclosure would constitute a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is for the above reasons that the College of Policing take the view that the documents 3, 4, 7 and 8 engage s40(2) and that any public interest / pressing social need factors that may suggest the need to disclose the requested information under FoIA do not outweigh the right to privacy in this case.

Document 6: Speaker Biographies: Biography of Dr Broome 6 Article 8(2) European Convention on Human Rights

The Speaker Biographies have been partially disclosed to you on the basis that all bar Dr Broome have given the College of Policing permission to release this information to the world. Dr Broome has expressly refused his consent for the College of Policing to release this information. The biography is clearly the personal data of Dr Broome and is akin to a very detailed professional CV.

The creation of the biography was as a result of Dr Broome agreeing to voluntarily contribute to this closed, invite-only event in an unpaid capacity. Its creation was purely for digest of those in attendance at this closed event made up of medical practitioners who share common background / expertise as Dr Broome. Indeed, an exploration of the social media sites (such as ‘LinkedIn’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Twitter’) and searches conducted on search engines (such as ‘Google’ and ‘Bing’) failed to locate any information regarding Dr Broome, which references the information contained within the biography provided for this event. It is clear that Dr Broome has made a concerted effort to keep this information private and has not self-disclose this information in open forums.

To this end, the College is convinced that the disclosure of the information in question against the express wishes of Dr Broome would be a contravention of Principle 17 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The College are positively swayed by the fact that it was Dr Broome’s legitimate expectation that the personal information he imparted to his colleagues at this closed, invite-only event would only be used and referenced to in the context of this event. It was clearly the College of Policing’s understanding and certainly Dr Broome’s expectation that explicit consent would be sought from Dr Broome before any further dissemination of this information by the College of Policing was undertaken.

The College refers specifically to the ICO’s Decision Notice for the City of Stoke-on-Trent dated 29th January 2014,8 which states:

7 n48 http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2014/fs_50515182.pdf

‘…The Commissioner recognises that people have an instinctive expectation that a public authority, in its role as a responsible employer and data controller, will not disclose certain information. He considers that information relating to an individuals’ employment history will attract a strong general expectation of privacy…’9

The College of Policing recognise that there is always some legitimate public interest in the disclosure of information held the College. This promotes the general aims of improving transparency and accountability. This in turn helps the public to understand more about the decisions made by the College. Furthermore, it is important for the public to be reassured, as much as possible, that sufficient training and guidance are provided to the Senior Medical Practitioners (SMP) who are assigned to assess the fitness of police officers and personal. However, the College are not convinced that such assurances need to be provided at the expense of the legitimate expectations to privacy of one of the voluntary contributors at this closed, invite-only event. Indeed, the College are not positively swayed that a world-wide disclosure would inform the public to such a degree that assurances of this nature could be so made. This is on the basis that this training would have been a small part of the wider suite of training that the SMPs would seek to obtain elsewhere in their professional capacities, which would, nonetheless, be very relevant to their selection to perform such roles for the police service now and in the future.

In addition to the above, the College of Policing struggles to find a pressing social need which determines that the release of this information would be in ‘…accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others…’10 [emphasis added] In the absence of this overriding pressing social need, the College of Policing finds that the disclosure would constitute a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

9 n8, paragraph 1710 Article 8(2) European Convention on Human Rights

The College finds Dr Broome’s expectation that the biography information created for this invite-only closed event would not be further disseminated outside of this forum and certainly not to the world is reasonable. Any disclosure of this information outside of this event would clearly be an infringement of Dr Broome’s privacy and the loss of privacy could cause unwarranted distress. The College is further swayed that there are no public interest factors that outweigh Dr Broome’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

It is for the above reasons that the College of Policing take the view that the information pertaining to Dr Broome within document 6 engages s40(2) and that any public interest / pressing social need factors that may suggest the need to disclose the requested information under FoIA do not outweigh the right to privacy in this case.

Annex B:

Complaint Rights

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of the College of Policing made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the College of Policing to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxxxxx.xx

In all possible circumstances the College of Policing will aim to respond to your complaint within 20 working days.

 

The Information CommissionerIf, after lodging a complaint with the College of Policing you are still dissatisfied with the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.  Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's OfficeWycliffe HouseWater LaneWilmslowCheshireSK9 5AFPhone:  01625 545 700