Three Cases, One File, Four PDFs
Asking The National Archives a question about a closed file generates paperwork. Asking about that paperwork generates more. By the time a third Freedom of Information request had run its course, the published record of how one Metropolitan Police file was handled had grown into four PDFs, three case references, and a letter from the Information Commissioner.
The sequence began on September 18, 2024, when an individual submitted a Freedom of Information request to The National Archives under the reference CAS-215008-T1F4M3, seeking access to MEPO 26/356. That record sits in the Metropolitan Police’s CR series, a set of registered crime files created after 1969, cataloged under the title “Organised crime in the West End.” The original request was refused. An internal review followed under CAS-231803-M6B7V9 and was decided on August 1, 2025.
A third case, CAS-290030, asked The National Archives (TNA) to release all internal records documenting how it had handled the first two proceedings. TNA confirmed it held responsive material and collated it into four PDF documents, available on request, with its response published on January 3, 2026. The set covers an ACNRA advisory record, an internal review checklist, several iterations of a Public Interest Test form, a research report on MEPO 26/356, and a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office.
One Named Detail and a Surrounding Silence
The released material discloses almost nothing about what MEPO 26/356 actually contains. TNA’s published response states that the file references an individual who informed on a serious criminal enterprise, subsequently received death threats, and was placed in protective custody, and characterizes this person as presumed still living. That is the record’s single explicit disclosure about the underlying file. The nature of the criminal enterprise, the period the investigation covered, the circumstances of the protective custody arrangement: none of it appears in anything TNA released under CAS-290030. TNA’s response also notes that the existence of an informant within the file is not itself treated as sensitive; only details capable of identifying that person are withheld.
Two Panels, One Form, One Admitted Error
Among the procedural details TNA puts on record is one it describes without elaboration as an error. The Public Interest Test form prepared under CAS-215008 was submitted to two separate ACNRA advisory panels: Panel 25, where it was logged as case 14, and Panel 34, where it appeared as case 06. TNA states that the Panel 34 review was conducted in error, and notes that because both panels considered the same PIT form, no duplicate was included in the released set.
Both panels produced recommendation documents addressed to the Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Those documents are withheld in full. What TNA does not state is how the duplication came about, whether the two panels reached the same or different conclusions, or whether both sets of recommendations were placed before the Secretary of State and, if so, with what effect. The error is acknowledged; its mechanism and downstream consequences are not explained anywhere in the released material.
Three Exemptions, Each With Its Own Argument
TNA applied three exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Section 36(2)(b) and (c) protects deliberative internal material where the authority’s designated Qualified Person, in TNA’s case, the Chief Executive and Keeper, has given a reasonable opinion that releasing it would likely inhibit free and frank advice or otherwise prejudice the conduct of public affairs. That opinion was provided and covers draft documents, earlier versions of the PIT form and research report, and the panel recommendation documents, all withheld in full or in part on that basis.
Section 38(1)(a)(b) was applied to any information capable of identifying the living informant referenced within MEPO 26/356, on the ground that disclosure could endanger that person’s physical safety. TNA’s public interest analysis concluded that protecting the individual’s safety clearly outweighs transparency interests and public curiosity in a historic crime.
Section 40(2), which protects personal data whose release would breach the first principle of the UK General Data Protection Regulation, was used to redact the names of junior TNA staff, the requester’s identity as it appeared in the ICO’s letter, and other personal information relating to living individuals. The Metropolitan Police Service, as the originating government department, was consulted under section 66 of the Act and supplied its own PIT form. Across all three exemptions, TNA concluded that the public interest in non-disclosure outweighed the public interest in transparency.
Drafts That Cannot Be Compared
Draft versions of the research report, the PIT form, and the internal review responses were withheld in their entirety. The final versions of the PIT form and research report were released, but with nothing earlier to set against them, there is no way to trace how the reasoning developed. The drafts may reflect substantively different legal or factual positions, or they may amount to routine editing. Section 36 covers them, and the record offers nothing further.
A Letter Confirming a Process That Has Left No Trace
The final item in TNA’s released set is a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office notifying TNA that a complaint relating to the internal review CAS-231803-M6B7V9, decided August 1, 2025, had been accepted for investigation. The complainant’s name is redacted under section 40(2). The published material contains no decision notice, no withdrawal notice, and no indication of how or whether the matter was resolved. The record of CAS-290030 ends with an investigation confirmed and nothing that follows it.