Freedom of information request
Handling of access request and internal review in relation to MEPO 26/356
- Freedom of information request reference
- CAS-290030
- Request resolved
Request
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am requesting all recorded information held by The National Archives (TNA) concerning the handling of my previous FOI request and internal review relating to the record MEPO 26/356 – Organised crime in the West End.
My original request was submitted on 18 September 2024 and reviewed under internal appeal CAS-231803-M6B7V9, decided on 1 August 2025.
Please provide all records generated or held by TNA that relate to the processing, consideration, and determination of these two cases. This should include, but not be limited to:
- Internal correspondence and notes – including emails, meeting notes, and file-handling logs created by TNA staff involved in the FOI process;
- Consultation material with the Metropolitan Police Service, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Advisory Council on National Records and Archives (ACNRA), and/or the Secretary of State, conducted under section 66(4) FOIA;
- Public interest test (PIT) documents, briefing notes, and any advice submitted to FOI Panels or ACNRA members;
- Minutes, recommendations, or comments provided by ACNRA members or FOI Panels to the Secretary of State;
- Drafts and final versions of the refusal notice(s) and internal review correspondence (including tracked-change versions, comments, or circulation notes);
- Any internal guidance, memos, or decision logs referring specifically to these case references (CAS-215008-T1F4M3 and CAS-231803-M6B7V9);
- Correspondence with the Information Commissioner’s Office, if any, regarding or mentioning these cases.
I request that the information be provided electronically, preferably as PDF attachments.
Where information is withheld under an exemption, please:
- cite the specific exemption(s) relied upon,
- explain why they apply in this context, and
- where feasible, release redacted or summary versions of withheld documents.
I appreciate that some personal data may be exempt under section 40(2), but I request that this be redacted rather than used to withhold documents in full.
This request is made in accordance with section 1 FOIA and the section 45 Code of Practice.
Outcome
Some information provided.
Response
I can confirm that The National Archives holds information relevant to your request. We have collated this within four PDF documents which are available upon request. To request copies please email FOIRequests@nationalarchives.gov.uk
Some of the information within these PDFs has been redacted. The FOI exemptions used to justify these redactions can be seen in the response below. An explanation of these exemptions can be seen in the annex at the end of this response.
Please note that the redaction markings on these PDFs, that do not have a stamp indicating the specific exemption under which that information has been redacted, indicate redactions made under section 40(2) of the FOI Act.
Each of these PDFs contains information relating to the following processes:
In relation to TNA’s consultation with the transferring government department under section 66 of the FOI Act, and the review process by TNA:
- Research report on MEPO 26/356 as provided to the MPS
- Public Interest Test (PIT) form for MEPO 26/356 as provided by the MPS
- Email correspondence between TNA and MPS
- Internal review CAS-231803 checklist
Information within these documents has been withheld under sections 36(2)(b)(c), 38(1)(a)(b) and 40(2) of the FOI Act.
Please note that draft versions of the research report, PIT form and internal review responses have been withheld in full under sections 36(2)(b)(c), 38(1)(b) and 40(2) of the FOI Act.
In relation to TNA’s consultation with the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives (ACNRA) and Secretary of State (SoS) for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), for Panel 25:
- Email correspondence between TNA and DCMS
- Internal TNA emails between members of the FOI Team
- Email correspondence between TNA and Advisory Council members on panel 25
- Panel 25 recommendations on case 14 (CAS-215008 / MEPO 26/356)
- Schedule of recommendations provided to DCMS regarding the PIT for panel 25, case 14
- PIT form for panel 25, case 14 (CAS-215008 / MEPO 26/356) as provided to DCMS by TNA
Information within these documents has been withheld in full under sections 36(2)(b)(c), 38(1)(b) and 40(2) of the FOI Act.
Information relating to cases reviewed on Panel 25, other than CAS-215008 / MEPO 26/356, has been redacted, as this information is not relevant to the criteria of the request.
In addition, a PIT form for MEPO 26/356 (with the same case reference; CAS-215008) was also reviewed by panel 34 in error, and the following documents are held in relation to this:
- Email correspondence between TNA and DCMS
- Internal TNA emails between members of the FOI Team
- Email correspondence between TNA and Advisory Council members on panel 34
- Panel 34 recommendations on case 06 (CAS-215008 / MEPO 26/356)
- Schedule of recommendations provided to DCMS regarding the PIT for panel 34, case 06
- PIT form for panel 36, case 06 (CAS-215008 / MEPO 26/356) as provided to DCMS by TNA
Information relating to cases reviewed on Panel 34, other than CAS-215008 / MEPO 26/356, has been redacted, as this information is not relevant to the criteria of the request.
Information within these documents has been withheld under sections 36(2)(b)(c), 38(1)(a)(b) and 40(2) of the FOI Act.
Please note that, as the PIT form reviewed by Panel 25 was the same as that reviewed by Panel 34, we have not provided a duplicate of this information.
Correspondence with the Information Commissioner’s Office, if any, regarding or mentioning these cases:
- Letter from the ICO notifying TNA that a complaint had been accepted for investigation in relation to CAS-231803
The complainant’s name has been withheld from this letter under section 40(2).
Annexe
Exemptions applied
Section 36: Prejudice to Effective Conduct of Public Affairs
Section 36(2)(b-c) 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, or would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely to otherwise prejudice,(c) the effective conduct of public affairs.
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 for some information.
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; in this case the FOI process at The National Archives.
However, it is considered that the release of some of the information requested would likely inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, and would otherwise prejudice the effective function of the FOI process. It is important that public officials are able to exchange views and make recommendations freely and frankly. To release some of the information requested would likely act as an inhibitor to necessary discussions, which would not be in the public interest, as this would be likely to prejudice The National Archives’ ability to carry out its statutory obligations in processing FOI requests. As such, release of some of the requested information would likely prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
It is important that there is a safe space for sensitive information produced by FOI officers in the course of their duties, in order that they might continue to carry out these duties effectively, and to ensure that the quality of decisions made are not prejudiced by a hesitancy in recording detailed information required for informed decision making. This includes a safe space for the drafting of documents. This prejudice is often referred to as the chilling effect.
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 on the ICO website.
Section 38(1)(b): Health and Safety
Section 38(1)(b) of the Act exempts information that, if it was released, would endanger the safety of any individual.
Section 38 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.
A summary of the Public Interest Test for this exemption is as follows:
Arguments made in favour of disclosure
There is a general presumption in favour of transparency under FOI.
The information in question relates to a historic crime.
Arguments made in favour of non – disclosure:
Information concerning MEPO 26/356 within a PIT form and research report contains information identifying an individual who informed on a serious criminal enterprise, received death threats, and was placed in protective custody. This individual is presumed living and is considered to likely be at risk of reprisals if their identity was disclosed. Disclosure would likely lead to their physical endangerment.
The fact that there was an informant is not considered sensitive, only information identifying this individual.
Outcome of the public interest test
The public’s curiosity in a historic crime, and the general presumption in favour of transparency under FOI, does not outweigh the public interest in ensuring that an individual’s physical safety is not endangered. The public interest clearly lies in favour of non-disclosure.
Further guidance on the application of this exemption can be found on the ICO website.
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 United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation (UK 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.
More information about requests for personal data about public authority employees, including junior staff, can be found on the ICO website.
The exemption also applies because the requested material contains the personal and the sensitive personal information of a number of identified individuals who are referenced within closed archival record MEPO 26/356, and are 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 on the ICO website.