Ceri Mortimer
Head of Operational Projects
Security Group
National Offender Management Service
7.15
Clive House
70 Petty France
London SW1H 9EX

Mr Richard Holmes
BuzzFeed News UK
40 Argyll St
London
W1F 7EB

Reference: Internal Review 105795 (of FOI 104637)

17th June 2016

Dear Mr Holmes,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) 2000 – OUTCOME OF INTERNAL REVIEW
Thank you for your recent request in which you ask for an Internal Review of FOI response
104637 sent to you on 26 May 2016.
Your original FOI request asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice
(MoJ):





I would be grateful for records of all Security Intelligence Reports filed by
prison staff identifying a colleague as corrupt. I would like this data to be laid
out numerically by which prison the report was filed from and separated by
which calendar year each report was made.
I addition to this information I would like to know how many of these reports
were acted upon, how many reported officers were excluded and the number of
officers convicted of criminal offences.
The time frame in which I would like to receive this data is the past five
calendar years from 01.01.10 to 31.12.15.

The purpose of an Internal Review is to assess how your FOI request was handled in the
first instance and to determine whether the original decision given to you was correct. This is
an independent review and I was not involved in the original decision.
I have reassessed your case and after careful consideration I have concluded that the initial
response that was sent to you was not fully compliant with the requirements of the FOIA.
This was because the response was issued outside of the time limit set in the FOIA. Please
accept my apologies for this unacceptable delay.
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) confirmed that whilst it held the
information which you requested it declined to provide it as it is exempt from disclosure
under section 31 of the FOIA. While I am satisfied that the reply was correct it may be helpful
to explain more fully why the information for which you asked could not be provided to you in
line with the legislation and why we did not proceed with your request.
As part of this I have also answered the subsequent points raised in your follow up
submission in the order they were raised.

The National Offender Management Service: part of the Ministry of Justice protecting the
public and reducing re-offending by delivering probation and prison services

 1. There is extensive precedent of the release of intelligence report statistics in that
there is “granular data” contained on the Justice Inspectorates web site.
The data you have requested is not contained in the data set within the reports produced by
HM’s Inspectorate of Prisons, the author of the reports you highlight. The data reflected in
those reports is a reflection of the quantity of total Security Intelligence reports submitted on
a monthly basis. This data set is common to the Inspectorate’s establishment reports as it
sets the scene for their handling of intelligence to impact upon the management of good
order and a safe/secure establishment. The data does not give subject matter, with the
exception of the report from 2001 reflecting that 53/74 security intelligence reports were drug
related. To do so would jeopardise the security and good order and discipline of an
establishment and increase the vulnerability to sophisticated criminals’ concentrated efforts
to target staff. Disclosure could also frustrate investigations and impede our ability to counter
criminality in prisons.
2. That precedent suggests that there is no public interest in with holding the
information. With NOMS arguing that the release of any data relating to the overall
number of complaints would inhibit its ability to combat serious criminality however
such information is already in the public domain via the Justice Inspectorates.
I have also re-considered the public interest argument of withholding this information in line
with FOIA exemption applied under section 31 and in this case have concluded that the
public interest favours withholding the information.
Arguments in favour of disclosure
 We recognise that disclosure would provide greater transparency and enable the public to
appreciate the frequency of the use of corruption prevention reporting and the resources
required to tackle crime in prisons. This would increase general understanding of the
need for such tactics and the circumstances in which they are used.
 Disclosure may provide opportunities for public discussion on crime in prisons
 It is also recognised that disclosure would improve transparency in relation to the public’s
knowledge of good order and security in prisons.
Arguments against disclosure
Security in this context is very broad. It includes, but is not limited to, prevention of escape
attempts, arrangement of criminal activities in the community, violence, bullying and
intimidation of person within or outside the prison. Consequently disclosure of the
information could have a prejudicial impact on the good order and security of the prison.
We believe however that it is more in the public interest to withhold this information because
it could be used to subvert the effective use of corruption prevention reporting by indicating
the potential and degrees of vulnerability. Information in the granular format would prove
invaluable to those engaged in criminality within prisons and would indicate or confirm the
extent to which activity was undertaken and where. This could lead criminals to focus their
activity, alter their behaviour and methods, which could in turn frustrate investigations and
our ability to counter criminality in prisons.
The fact that the NOMS uses corruption prevention reporting is a matter of public record but
the extent to which we both receive and use that information across the prison estate may
highlight weaknesses in operational response and provide tactical advantage to criminals as
they may conclude that risks were worth taking in view of the information provided.
It should also be remembered that NOMS has finite resources and therefore needs to target
its investigative capability to address the threats posed by serious criminality. Any
information that presents information or directs criminals to vulnerable areas is likely to mean
that NOMS will not easily be able to recover the initiative.

 Releasing this information by way of a FOI response puts that information in the public
domain. The threat to security is therefore not only from prisoners but also from persons
outside the prison who may use this information in a way which is prejudicial to security.
You can find out more about section 31 by reading the extract from the FOIA and some
guidance points we consider when applying this exemption - attached at the end of this
letter. The full text of the FOIA is available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36
You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details can be found in
the ‘How to Appeal’ section, which is also attached at the end of this reply.
Disclosure Log
You can also view information that the MoJ has disclosed in response to previous FOI
requests. Responses are anonymised and published on our on-line disclosure log which can
be found on the MoJ website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/freedom-ofinformation-disclosure-log
The published information is categorised by subject area and in alphabetical order.

Yours sincerely

Ceri Mortimer
Information Commissioner’s Office
If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the
Information Commissioner’s Office. The Commissioner is an independent regulator who has
the power to direct us to respond to your request differently, if he considers that we have
handled it incorrectly.
You can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at the following address:
Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Internet address: https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx

EXPLANATION OF FOIA - SECTION 23 – INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY, OR RELATING
TO, BODSIES DEALING WITH SECURITY MATTERS
We have provided below additional information about Section 1 and Section 23 of the
Freedom of Information Act. We have included some extracts from the legislation, as well as
some of the guidance we use when applying it. We hope you find this information useful.
The legislation
Section 1: Right of Access to information held by public authorities
(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
(a)

to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of
the description specified in the request, and

 (b)

if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

Section 23: Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security
matters.
(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it was directly or indirectly
supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).
(2) A certificate signed by a Minister of the Crown certifying that the information to which it
applies was directly or indirectly supplied by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in
subsection (3) shall, subject to section 60, be conclusive evidence of that fact.
(3)The bodies referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are—
(a)

the Security Service,

(b)

the Secret Intelligence Service,

(c)

the Government Communications Headquarters,

(d)

the special forces,

(e)

the Tribunal established under section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000,

(f)

the Tribunal established under section 7 of the Interception of
Communications Act 1985,

(g)

the Tribunal established under section 5 of the Security Service Act 1989,

(h)

the Tribunal established under section 9 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994,

(i)

the Security Vetting Appeals Panel,

(j)

the Security Commission,

(k)

the National Criminal Intelligence Service,

(l)

the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service.

(m)

the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

(4) In subsection (3)(c) “the Government Communications Headquarters” includes any unit
or part of a unit of the armed forces of the Crown which is for the time being required by the
Secretary of State to assist the Government Communications Headquarters in carrying out
its functions.
(5)The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section
1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded)
which was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the
bodies specified in subsection (3).

EXPLANATION OF FOIA – SECTION 31 - LAW ENFORCEMENT
We have provided below additional information about Section 31 of the Freedom of
Information Act. We have included some extracts from the legislation, as well as some of the
guidance we use when applying it. We hope you find this information useful.

Section 31: Law Enforcement
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information
if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—
(a)

the prevention or detection of crime,

(b)

the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

(c)

the administration of justice,

 (d)

the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a
similar nature,

(e)

the operation of the immigration controls,

(f)

the maintenance of security and good order in prisons or in other institutions
where persons are lawfully detained,

(g)

the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes
specified in subsection (2),

(h)

any civil proceedings which are brought by or on behalf of a public authority
and arise out of an investigation conducted, for any of the purposes specified
in subsection (2), by or on behalf of the authority by virtue of Her Majesty’s
prerogative or by virtue of powers conferred by or under an enactment, or

(i)

any inquiry held under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiries
(Scotland) Act 1976 to the extent that the inquiry arises out of an investigation
conducted, for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2), by or on behalf
of the authority by virtue of Her Majesty’s prerogative or by virtue of powers
conferred by or under an enactment.

(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(g) to (i) are—
(a)

the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the
law,

(b)

the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any
conduct which is improper,

(c)

the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify
regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,

(d)

the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation o the
management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other
activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on,

(e)

the purpose of ascertaining the cause of an accident,

(f)

the purpose of protecting charities against misconduct or mismanagement
(whether by trustees or other persons) in their administration,

(g)

the purpose of protecting the property of charities from loss or misapplication,

(h)

the purpose of recovering the property of charities,

(i)

the purpose of securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, and

(j)

the purpose of protecting persons other than persons at work against risk to
health or safety arising out of or in connection with the actions of persons at
work.

(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with
section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in
subsection (1).
Guidance
Section 31 is concerned with protecting a wide range of law enforcement interests and its
application turns on whether disclosure would be likely to prejudice those interests.
Some interests that are protected by section 31 are drawn quite widely, for example: the
administration of justice, the prevention or detection of crime and the operation of
immigration controls. But section 31 also applies where the exercise by any public authority
of certain specified functions would be prejudiced by disclosure. Those functions include:
ascertaining whether a person is responsible for improper conduct, determining the cause of
an accident and ascertaining a person's fitness to carry on a profession.
This section is not restricted to information of any particular description; it turns on
consideration of the likely effects of any disclosure. Examples of circumstances in which the

 prejudicial effects referred to in this part of this exemption are most likely to be relevant could
include the following disclosures:







intelligence about anticipated criminal activities
information relating to planned police operations, including specific planned
operations, and policies and procedures relating to operational activity;
information relating to the identity and role of police informers
information relating to police strategies and tactics in seeking to prevent crime
information whose disclosure would facilitate the commission of any offence; and
information whose disclosure would prejudice the fair trial of any person against
whom proceedings have been or may be instituted.