Transfer and closure of DPP 2/12145 – DPP 2/12373 (Strangeways Riots)

FOI request reference: CAS-86347
Publication date: August 2022

Request

1. When were the case papers transferred to the responsibility of The National Archives?
2. From which department/authority were the case papers transferred from?
3. Which department/authority recommended the closure of the case papers?
4. Do the case papers transferred to The National Archives contain, or contained at any point, audio recordings?
5. If no audio recordings were contained in the case papers transferred to The National Archives, where would such recordings be transferred to? (I am looking specifically for a tape recording of the sermon being given at the time the riots broke out.)

I am also requesting disclosure of the following documents:
1. Any and all instructions/correspondence received from the transferring Department concerning the transfer of the case papers, such as transfer forms
2. Any and all associated schedules, such as those identifying records which require closure, and the corresponding identification of reasons for closure
3. Any and all internal correspondence within The National Archives relating to the case papers

Outcome

Some information provided.

Response

1. When were the case papers transferred to the responsibility of The National Archives?

The files, DPP 2/12145 – DPP 2/12373, were transferred to The National Archives on 19th November 2018.

2. From which department/authority were the case papers transferred from?

The originating department is the Crown Prosecution Service; the files were transferred from this department to The National Archives.

3. Which department/authority recommended the closure of the case papers?

The decision to close any record on transfer lies with the originating department; in this case the Crown Prosecution Service.

4. Do the case papers transferred to The National Archives contain, or contained at any point, audio recordings?

The requested files, DPP 2/12145 – DPP 2/12373, do not contain audio recordings. If the files had included audio recordings these would have been included within the selected records transferred to The National Archives and would have been detailed in any Transfer Forms.

5. If no audio recordings were contained in the case papers transferred to The National Archives, where would such recordings be transferred to? (I am looking specifically for a tape recording of the sermon being given at the time the riots broke out.)

If audio recordings were contained within any of the requested files, DPP 2/12145 – DPP 2/12373, they would have been transferred to The National Archives as a digital component. Any audio recordings held by the Crown Prosecution Service would have since been returned to the relevant police force.

1. Any and all instructions/correspondence received from the transferring Department concerning the transfer of the case papers, such as transfer forms

Please see attachment 1 – CAS-86347 External Instruction and Transfer Forms for the correspondence and transfer forms held by The National Archives concerning DPP 2/12145 – DPP 2/12373.

2. Any and all associated schedules, such as those identifying records which require closure, and the corresponding identification of reasons for closure

DPP 2/12145 – DPP 2/12373 were closed by the schedule 94 FOI Exemption. Please see attachment 2 – CAS-86347 Associated Schedules for associated schedule information and correspondence held by The National Archives concerning DPP 2/12145 – DPP 2/12373.

3. Any and all internal correspondence within The National Archives relating to the case papers

We have understood this as a request for any and all internal correspondence within The National Archives relating to the transfer of DPP 2/12145 – DPP 2/12373. Please see attachment 3 – CAS-86347 Internal Correspondence for the internal correspondence held by The National Archives.

We are unable to provide you with some of the information you have requested because it is covered by the exemption at section 36 of the FOI Act, which exempts information if it would create prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs.

Some of the information is also covered by the exemption at section 38 of the Act. This exempts information if its disclosure would endanger any individual (including the applicant, the supplier of the information or anyone else).

Information is also covered by the exemption section 40 of the Act. This exempts personal information about a ‘third party’ (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would break the terms of Data Protection Legislation. For further information about why these exemptions have been applied, please see the explanatory annex at the end of this letter.

Exemptions applied

Section 36: Prejudice to Effective Conduct of Public Affairs
Section 36 (2) (b) exempts information from release if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to; (b)(i) inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, (b)(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation.

This exemption has been applied to some information within the associated closure schedules regarding the closure request for DPP 2/12145 – DPP 2/12373

Section 36 is a qualified exemption, and we are required to conduct a public interest test when applying any qualified exemption. This means that after it has been decided that the exemption is engaged, the public interest in releasing the information must be considered. If the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in withholding it then the exemption does not apply, and the information must be released. In the FOIA there is a presumption that information should be released unless there are compelling reasons to withhold it.

With the agreement of the Qualified Person, who in this case is the Chief Executive and Keeper of The National Archives, in whose reasonable opinion this exemption is engaged, the public interest has now been concluded and the balance of the public interest has been found to fall in favour of non-disclosure.

Considerations in favour of the release of the information included the principle that there is a public interest in showing a true and open account of government decision-making, making for greater accountability and increasing public confidence in the integrity of the decisions made. There is also a public interest and expectation of transparency around the associated closure schedules of files at The National Archives. Furthermore, disclosure would improve public confidence in the integrity of the process and decisions made.

However, it is considered that the release of some of the information requested would prejudice the effective function of the process.  In particular, release of this information would be likely to prejudice the provision of free and frank advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation by preventing the effective aforementioned decision-making process from occurring. TNA is required to engage freely and openly to discuss sensitivities. Disclosure of this documentation could adversely impact the working relationships between TNA and transferring departments; impacting the willingness of departments to provide the level of detail in consultation, as the closure process requires.

After careful consideration, it has been decided that the balance of the public interest lies in favour of withholding the information on this occasion and that the factors for non-disclosure outweigh any benefits of release.

Further guidance on the application of this exemption can be found at:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1175/section_36_prejudice_to_effective_conduct_of_public_affairs.pdf

Explanatory annexe

Section 38: Health and Safety
Section 38 provides an exemption from disclosing information if it would endanger any individual (including the applicant, the supplier of the information or anyone else).  The exemption does not necessarily deal with what are usually thought of as health and safety matters, such as establishing the cause of an accident.

In this case, section 38(1) (a) applies as, if the information was released, it would or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual. Section 38(1) (b) applies as, if the information was disclosed, it would, or would be likely to endanger the safety of any individual.

The Crown Prosecution Service has a duty of care to the surviving relatives of victims of crime, which includes ensuring that information that would cause substantial distress is managed in a way that puts their welfare at the fore-front. Furthermore, named individuals need the reassurance of knowing that FOI Act access rights will not be allowed to be exercised to their detriment and will not have the effect of placing in the public domain detailed accounts of events which may result in a threat to life, causing them distress in the knowledge that this information can be accessed freely by the public.  Therefore, it is concluded that the balance of the public interest falls in favour of withholding the above information under section 38(1) (a) & (b), as the benefits of disclosure are outweighed by the possible mental endangerment to surviving relatives and endangerment to the safety of any individual.

Further guidance on the application of this exemption can be found here:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guidance-index/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/section-38-health-and-safety/

Section 40(2): Personal Information where the applicant is not the data subject
Section 40 exempts personal information about a ‘third party’ (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would breach the terms of Data Protection Legislation. Data Protection Legislation prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress. Personal information must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner as set out by Art. 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In this case the exemption applies because the requested material contains information which would identify junior members of staff.

Publishing the names and contact details of junior members of staff is considered an unfair use of personal data. Junior members of staff would have no expectation that information about their positions would be made available in the public domain; to do so would be unfair and contravene the first data protection principle of the Data Protection Act. As such, the names, positions and contact details of junior officials are withheld under section 40 (2) of the FOI Act.

Further guidance about the publication of junior staff names can be found here:
https://ico.org.uk/media/fororganisations/documents/1187/section_40_requests_for_personal_data_about_employees.pdf

In this case the exemption applies because the requested material contains the personal and the sensitive personal information of a number of identified individuals assumed still to be living. These individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy which would not include the release of this information into the public domain by The National Archives during their lifetime. To do so would be likely to cause damage and/or distress and would be a breach of the first data protection principle, which is concerned with the fair, lawful and transparent processing of information of this kind.

Further guidance on the application of this exemption can be found here:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2619056/s40-personal-information-section-40-regulation-13.pdf