Information Commissioner's Office

Thames Valley Police

7 March 2016, Police and criminal justice

The complainant requested the Individual Management Review (IMR) compiled by the Thames Valley Police force (the police) following a lengthy criminal investigation which led to the conviction of several adult males for serious sexual offices against children. The Commissioner decided that the IMR had a policing purpose. It is therefore held by the police for their own purposes in addition to its use as a source document for the Serious Case Review (SCR) prepared for, and published by, the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB). The LSCB is not a public authority for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner partly upheld the complaint and decided that parts of the IMR should have been disclosed.  Redactions are set out in the confidential annex to this notice. He did not uphold the remainder of the complaint and decided that the police had relied correctly on the section 30(1) and 40(2) FOIA exemptions to withhold the remaining information. The police delay in responding to the request breached section 10(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the police response to the information request did not fully comply with FOIA in that some information should have been disclosed within the statutory time period. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide information to the complainant in the form of a copy of the IMR, redacted in accordance with the confidential annex to this notice which has been sent to the police only.

FOI 10: Upheld FOI 30: Partly upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld