Freedom of Information Disclosure Log

Here you will find the FOI requests that have been published.

Reference: 9317-18
Date: 23/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 1th January and received by this office on 15th January 2018.  Following your response to our request for clarification on 17th January 2018 I note you seek the following information.

Please could you provide me with the bill sent to Hartlepool United for policing the following;

Hartlepool United vs Gateshead - January 1st 2018 - £2,713.92
Hartlepool United vs Maidenhead - December 23rd 2017 - £0
Hartlepool United vs Macclesfield Town - December 2nd 2017 - £1,742.34

Having made enquiries with our finance department the information provided above is all that we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9281-18
Date: 17/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 4th January 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you,

A copy (redacted where appropriate in line with the relevant exemptions) of every problem profile assessment, of domestic burglary, commissioned or produced by or on behalf of Cleveland Police since 01/01/2012.
Following enquiries within the force we can confirm that there have been no problem profile assessments relating to domestic burglaries within the timescale of your request so our answer, on this occasion, must be no information held.

Reference: 9274-18
Date: 31/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 3rd January 2018.  I note you seek the following information:

Using the time frame January 2016 to December 2017.  Could you tell me how many crimes include the word “facebook” in the offence text.  Could you break this down by year and crime type i.e. Fraud, Harassment etc.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9272-18
Date: 30/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 2nd January 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on 3rd January 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you,

The following is a request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please could I have the following information broken down by financial year between 2011/12 and 2016/17.

1. The number of ill/injured people taken to hospital by police because of a lack of available ambulances.
2. The types of illness/injuries people were suffering with when they were taken to hospital by police because of the lack of ambulances.
3. The number of people who died while being taken to hospital by police because of a lack of available ambulances.

If data is available for the whole of 2017, could I please also have the above information broken down by calendar year between 2012 and 2017.

If for whatever reason it is not possible to answer all of the above questions in their entirety, please prioritize question 1.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

We have made enquiries within the force and have been advised that the information requested is not routinely logged.  To try and provide you with a response would require that we carry out a key word search for incidents that include the word ambulance.  For the month of December 2017 alone there were a total of 938 instances where the abbreviation ‘Amb’ was used, giving a potential figure of in excess of 11,000 for a single year, all of which would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Reference: 9269-18
Date: 31/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 2nd January 2018.  I note you seek the following information:

Q1 How many crimes were recorded by the force in the listed years below relating to the offence of ‘attempting to cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity’?
2015 – 37
2016 – 54
2017 – 34
Q2) How many PPA (people proceeded against) were recorded by the force for the offence ‘attempting to cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity’?
2015 – 4
2016 – 7
2017 – 6
Q3) How many of those cases in Q2 used evidence supplied by so called Paedophile Hunters?
No information held
Q4) How many crimes were recorded by the force in the listed years below relating to the offence of ‘causing a child to watch sexual activity’?
2015 – 5
2016 – 5
2017 – 3
Q5) How many PPA (people proceeded against) were recorded by the force for the offence of ‘causing a child to watch sexual activity’?
2015 – 0
2016 – 0
2017 – 0
Q6) How many of those cases in Q5 used evidence supplied by so called Paedophile Hunters?
No information held
Q7) How many crimes were recorded by the force in the listed years below relating to the offence of ‘attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming’?
2015 – 13
2016 – 28
2017 – 9
Q8) How many PPA (people proceeded against) were recorded by the force for the offence of ‘attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming’?
2015 – 5
2016 – 6
2017 – 2
Q9) How many of those cases in Q8 used evidence supplied by so called Paedophile Hunters?
No information held

Please could I have the details for the calendar years 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9267-18
Date: 30/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you,

1) How many 999 or 101 calls your force has received in relation to alleged UFO or alien sightings in the following years: 2015, 2016 and 2017.
2) If possible, please break down the figures for each year and provide the locations of where the sightings occurred. 
Having made enquiries within the force we have been advised that within the timescale of your request there have been 3 recorded incidents of UFO sightings all in 2015 and all in the Middlesbrough area.  In relation to Alien sightings we have records of 7 calls however they are not specifically sightings more calls from persons on medication or with mental health issues.

Reference: 9266-18
Date: 30/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 2nd January.  I note you seek the following information:

• Total s136 to police cells at your force from 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017
12
• Total s136 to police cells (aged under 18) at your force from 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017
0
• Total s136 to health-based places of safety at your force from 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017
There are two places that are used to assess S136 Mental Health these are NHS facilities not Cleveland Police.
• Total s136 to health based places of safety (aged under 18) at your force from 1st April 2016 to     31st March 2017
As above
• Total use of s136 at your force from 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017
11 - Mental Health Arrests
• Total use of s136 (aged under 18) at your force from 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017
0 - Mental Health Arrests

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9265-17
Date: 30/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 29th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

1)  The number of individuals who have been held in police custody whose address is recorded as no fixed abode or no address, or who have no address recorded, per calendar month for 2015 (ie. January 2015: 10, February 2015: 15, etc);
2)    The number of individuals who have been held in police custody whose address is recorded as no fixed abode or no address, or who have no address recorded, per calendar month for 2016 (ie. January 2016: 10, February 2016: 15, etc);
3)    The number of individuals who have been held in police custody whose address is recorded as no fixed abode or no address, or who have no address recorded, per calendar month for 2017 (ie. January 2017: 10, February 2017: 15, etc); and
4)    The number of days between 1 January 2017 to date that new admissions to police custody have been halted.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised each custody record  would require reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request as we do not have a search facility for addresses given and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.
 

 

Reference: 9264-17
Date: 23/01/2018

I write in response to your request for information received in this office on 22nd December 2017.  I note you seek the following information:

1) Has the Force hired any Police Staff Investigators/Civilian investigators through an external recruitment agency (as opposed to internal, directly employed Police staff investigators) during the financial years 2015/6 and 2016/17?

No

2) If the answer to Q1 is YES please state whether the force hired Police staff investigators/Civilian investigators through the Red Snapper recruitment group (including Police skills or Police oracle sites) either directly or indirectly during the financial years of 2015/16 and 2016/17. If Red Snapper were not used please state which agency(s) was.
 3) What was the total cost of hiring Police staff investigators/Civilian investigators through external recruitment agencies for the financial years 2015/16 and 2016/17?

Having made enquiries within the Force the answer is no information is held.

Reference: 9263-17
Date: 29/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 29th December 2017.  I note you seek the following:

1) How many dogs did your Police force report as stolen in 2015, 2016, 2017 (Month by month count)
2) For those dogs reported as stolen in 2015, 2016 and 2017, what breeds were they in each case?
3) For those dogs reported as stolen in 2015, 2016 and 2017, where were the dogs when they were taken? E.g. from their home, garden, outside a shop; etc.
4) For those dogs reported as stolen in 2015, 2016 and 2017, how many dogs were later recovered and returned to owner? 

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.                                                                     

Reference: 9261-17
Date: 26/01/2018

I write in connection with your refined request for information dated 28th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  
Below are the questions asked in your new request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you:
For the past 5 years (2012-2016) & year to date (if you are able):

1 - The total number of arrests made in your force area.
2012/13 – 29,175
2013/14 – 26,594
2014/15 – 21,498
2015/16 – 19,545
2017/18 – 13,478 to the date of your request
2 - Of those arrests the number where detention was declined by a custody officer.
2012/13 – 452
2013/14 – 358
2014/15 – 215
2016/17 – 206
2017/18 – 106 to the date of your request

Reference: 9260-17
Date: 26/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 27th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 28th December 2017.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you,

I note in the local press you are conducting anti drink driving campaigns and stopping drivers to request breath tests.  As far as I am aware the road traffic act 1988 gives you powers to request a specimen of breath only if you suspect a driver has been drinking, involved in an accident or committed a traffic offence.
It seems that this campaign involves random breath testing.
1. Can you tell me under what powers you are requesting random breath tests and what will you do if a driver refuses to provide sample (assuming you have no reason to suspect he has been drinking?
a) We have made enquiries with the Road Policing Department and they have advised us that;
Cleveland Police use Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to stop vehicles and during the interaction we request a Voluntary Breath Sample if no power exists to request one.  However if, during the voluntary interaction, there is a case of a driver smelling of alcohol or cannabis this would become a formal request for a sample additionally, for example, a vehicle driven with a defective light would also become a formal request for a sample.
Overall the public receive the operation/s very positively and the operation allows persons to question officers and receive information and education leaflets relating to drink drug driving.
 
‘Mass Screening’ operations will take place across both Force areas (Cleveland Police & Durham Constabulary are a joint collaboration) at specific locations having consideration for the volume of traffic and road safety implications.  Vehicles will be stopped under the provisions of Section 163,
Road Traffic Act 1988.

Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 allows a constable in uniform or a traffic officer to stop a mechanically propelled vehicle being driven, or a cycle being ridden, on a road.

163(1) A person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform or a traffic officer.
Section 6 Road Traffic Act (Power to Administer Preliminary Tests)
1.2 In addition to the ‘mass screenings’ undertaken by CDSOU Officers, all Area and District Officers are requested to require a preliminary test where the requirements under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, which covers preliminary tests for alcohol, drugs and field impairment tests are met.
1.3 On all such occasions where police powers as indicated above exist to require a preliminary test, then this should be done. Where no such powers exist (particularly during ‘mass screenings’) the driver should be requested to voluntarily provide such a specimen. Where in the absence of any power, the specimen provided is to be a voluntary specimen, the driver of the vehicle must be absolutely clear that this is the case. Where the preliminary breath test requested is to be a ‘voluntary’ specimen, then in the event of the driver refusing to supply this voluntary specimen and in the absence of any further suspicion on the part of the officer (or unless there is a need to deal with other matters/vehicle defects etc), the driver should be allowed to proceed at the earliest opportunity.

Drug tests will not be part of the mass screening unless suspicion is present.
1.4 Section 6B Road Traffic Act - Preliminary (Field) Impairment Tests (FIT)
1.5 Recent campaigns have seen a significant decline in the number of FIT tests being conducted. NPCC/ DFT is aware that the s.4 legislation carries some difficulties in application and the offence at s.5a is now available. However, if impairment is suspected then a FIT test should be carried out if applicable.
1.6 Only those Officers who have undertaken the relevant FIT training are authorised to carry out preliminary impairment tests.
1.7 Section 6c RTA 1988 Preliminary Test for Drugs
1.8 Since March 2015 legislation now covers the offence of driving etc. with excess of a specified drug under s.5a RTA with the accompanying power to request a preliminary test for drugs.

2. Do you have new powers to mount road blocks and demand breath tests?
a) No
3. If so can you tell me the legislation that gives you these powers?
a) N/A

Reference: 9258-17
Date: 25/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 27th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the below information.

Can you tell me please how many Bitcoins your force has seized under the Proceeds of Crime act Since 2010, broken down year by year?
Can you also tell me please what has happened to those Bitcoins.
If your force sold them, please tell me how much for and when.
If your force still holds them, please confirm this.

a) We have made enquiries with our Economic Crime Unit and they have advised that Bitcoins do not currently fall into the definition of cash within POCA so therefore our answer, on this occasion, must be no information held.

Reference: 9257-17
Date: 25/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 26th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 27th December 2017.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you,

During Christmas day how many of the following incidents did your force deal with
1. Domestic Violence
For the purposes of this FOI the definition of DV is:
Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality.
Please provide
A. Details e.g. Threats, Violence, Abuse
B Number of arrests if any if there were.
C Gender (as disclosed by any victims)
D  Gender of any suspect ( as disclosed by any suspect where known)
E. Age of victims if known
Time frame: The 24hrs that are Christmas day.
We have made enquiries with the Performance Analyst in the PQR Performance Team and they have advised us that there were no crimes recorded on that day as the search criteria is for the date that the crime was validated and as none of the staff in the department that would validate crimes works on Christmas day the answer is none.
Please note any such crime would be recorded under the Crime Category of ‘violence with injury’, ‘violence no injury’, Homicide etc. and with sub heading of Assault with injury, Assault without injury, Harassment, Threats to kill etc.
However we have identified 2 incidents that have been validated on the 26th December that occurred on the 25th December that are pertinent to your request.
Common assault – victim aged 21 - suspect age 36 arrested
Breach of restraining order – male aged 30 arrested

Reference: 9256-17
Date: 25/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 27th December 2017.  I note you seek the following information.
 
1) How many arrests have your police force made for the offences of a) supplying controlled drugs or b) possession with intent to supply controlled drugs in the last five calendar years (2013,2014,2015,2016,2017)? Please can say how old the person arrested was, their gender and the drugs alleged to have been involved

I am trying to establish the number of people under the age of 16 involved in drug sales. To do this I need total number of arrests, so I can work out how big a proportion are younger. I do not require any other identifying information. If you cannot give details of the gender then please still provide details of age.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve which is a snap shot of data up to the end of December.

 

Reference: 9255-17
Date: 25/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 22nd December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 27th December 2017.  I note you seek access to the following information:

1 - Please provide details on the number of persons investigated between 1 January 2014 and 30 November 2017 for whom the following criteria apply:
The crime was in relation to motor vehicles and the person being investigated worked as an 'auto locksmith'.
2 - Of those investigated, how many were charged or given a police caution.
3 - Of those charged, how many either pleaded guilty or were found guilty at court.

We have made enquiries within the force and can advise you that there have been no crimes reported/recorded where the crime was in relation to motor vehicles where the suspect was recorded a working as an 'auto locksmith'.

 

Reference: 9254-17
Date: 26/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 21st December 2017 and received by this office on 22nd December 2017. Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within this office, which has led to a substantial backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated.
 I note you seek the following information.

Please may I have information for the purposes of academic research any information available relating to your: Call Centre calls for 999 Emergency Calls and 101 Non-Emergency Calls? For a wider time period (number of years) as you are able to provide.

I would ideally like this on a daily resolution however if this is not available (within the timeframe or cost element of the FOI act) then weekly or monthly would be more than acceptable. Information which would be helpful would be Total Volume of Calls, and if accessible Answer Time and Abandoned Phone Calls, any other information stored at source would also be welcome for example Abandoned Phone Calls after X time (Various police forces have numerous metrics).

We have made enquiries within the force and have attached a document that contains all of the information requested that we have been able to retrieve within the prescribed time limit.


 

Reference: 9253-17
Date: 23/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 21st December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 22nd December 2017.  I note you seek access to the below information.

Could you tell me how many drivers you have prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit in a 20mph zone since January 01 2017?
How many drivers did you prosecute for exceeding the speed limit in a 20mph zone in the whole of 2016?
We have made enquiries with our Central Ticket Office and have been advised that Cleveland Police do not currently enforce this offence so our answer, on this occasion, must be no information held

Reference: 9251-17
Date: 23/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 21st December.  I note you seek the following information.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I seek access to information about your police force’s use of stop and search.
I would like to know for the last five years (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 to date):

1. The total number of stop and searches carried out by the police force annually
2. Age breakdown: The number of people stop and searched by your force annually in each of the below categories:
a. Under the age of 10
b. Under the age of 16
3. Ethnicity breakdown: The number of people stop and searched by your force annually broken down by the ethnicity grouping that you record
4. What percentage of stop and searches led to an arrest annually, ideally broken down by ethnicity if possible

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9250-17
Date: 23/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 21st December 2017 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

Please could I ask what the force has paid out in legal settlements in employment tribunals and non-tribunal employment matters, in the years from 2012 to 2017, each year, please. Both in and out of court settlements. Can I also ask how much of this your insurers have paid out on your behalf and how much has come directly from Cleveland Police funds.

Following enquiries with our Legal Department we have been advised that Cleveland Police is not insured for either of the areas referred to and that in relation to non-tribunal employment matters, Cleveland Police has no finalised claims within the period requested.
Additionally we must advise you that in relation to Employment Tribunals, claims can be subject to a ‘COT3’, which is an agreement of compromise on behalf of both parties which can be subject to a confidentiality agreement.  Due to the confidential terms of these agreements, therefore we are not able to confirm whether or not they exist nor are we able to confirm the settlement terms of any claims where confidentiality clauses exist.  Therefore the only information that can be provided, is that which has been taken from claims where there was a court judgment or a non-confidential agreement.
Below is the information that we have been provided with for disclosure;
2012
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny if any claims were finalised where information can be provided.
2013
£9684.87 paid out
2014
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny if any claims were finalised where information can be provided.
2015
£457,664.00 paid out
2016
£10,000 paid out
2017
£180,000 paid out

Once again please accept our apologies for the delay in responding but we have been waiting for the information to be collated and forwarded to us for disclosure.

 

Reference: 9248-17
Date: 22/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information which we received in this office on 20th December 2017.  I note you seek the following information:

1 ) How many children under the age of criminal responsibility committed a crime, recorded by your force, each year from 2012 to 2017?

2012 – 16
2013 – 35
2014 – 56
2015 – 101
2016 – 106
2017 - 99

2) Which cities/ towns were the crimes committed in?
      
Towns   2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Grand Total
Hartlepool  5 3 4 21 21 19 73
Middlesbrough  6 9 19 28 28 31 121
Redcar   2 16 17 24 25 23 107
Stockton  3 7 16 28 32 26 112
Grand Total  16 35 56 101 106 99 413

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9247-17
Date: 22/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 20th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the below information.

In cases of Child Abuse and Sexual Offences prosecuted by your force how many have been discontinued due to failure of Police Officers to disclose unused material that undermines the prosecution / assists the defence and has the alleged “complainant “ been subsequently investigated for perverting the course of justice.

Time scale is 1st December 2015 too 1st December 2017

To assist the Crown Prosecution Service, on their website, define Perverting the course of justice as
Any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to be head in the wrong direction
Please note the Freedom of Information legislation allows for certain “exemptions” to the extraction of data, one being Section 12 which considers an extraction too timely in terms of staff hours.
If this exemption is applied ,by law, you must apply a "“Public Interest Test “ where if you maintain the exemption/exclusion to confirm or deny the requested data this would have to outweigh the Public Interest in confirming or releasing the data.

We have made enquiries within the force and the advice we have been given is that information in relation to discontinuances would be held by the Crown Prosecution Service and would need to be requested from them.  We have however made enquiries with our Standards and Ethics Department and they have advised that they have been unable to locate any conduct/complaint matters, within the timescale of your request, that relate to officers failure to disclose material for any offence not just those relevant to this request.

 

Reference: 9246-17
Date: 22/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 20th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you,

1. How many reports of violence crimes were there using acid or other corrosive substance
broken down into individual years from 2012 to date in 2017 .
2013 – 1
2014 – 4
2015 – 7 
2016 – 4
2017 – 5

2. How many victims were female.
2013 – 1
2014 – 1
2015 – 1 
2016 – 2
2017 – 1

3. How many victims were male.
2013 – 0
2014 – 3
2015 – 6 
2016 – 2
2017 – 4

4. Age groups of the victims – under 10, under 20, under 30, over 30.
2013 – 1 x 20 and under
2014 – 1 x 20 and under, 1 x 21 - 30 & 2 x 31 and over
2015 – 2 x 20 and under, 4 x 31 and over and 1 unknown age 
2016 – 1 x 20 and under and 3 x 31 and over
2017 – 1 x 20 and under, 2 x 21 - 30 & 2 x 31 and over

5. In how many of these attacks was an arrest made, and which subsequently made it to court?
Below is a breakdown showing the number of persons charged to appear at court.
2013 – 0
2014 – 1
2015 – 1 
2016 – 0
2017 – 1

6. What was the ethnicity of the victim?
2013 – 1 x Black
2014 – 1 x Black, 2 x White 1 x Other
2015 –  6 x White 1 x Other
2016 – 4 x White
2017 – 4 x White 1 x Unknown

7. What was the ethnicity of the attacker?
2013 – 1 x White
2014 – 3 x White 1 x Unknown
2015 –  5 x White 2 x Unknown
2016 – 3 x White 1 x Unknown
2017 – 4 x White 1 x Unknown

 

 

Reference: 9245-17
Date: 17/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 19th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 20th December 2017.    Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you,

1 - How many people convicted of a Terrorist Act offence or terrorist-related offence are currently being monitored by your force as part of a multi-agency public protection arrangement (MAPPA).
  2 - Of those, how many have moved from the address they are supposed to be living at in accordance with the MAPPA without informing your force?   
  3 - Of those who have been found to have moved from their designated address without informing you, how many were at Mappa Level 2.
  4 - Of those who have been found to have moved from their designated address without informing you, how many were at Mappa Level 3.
  5 - How long is it since each of these "missing" offenders was known to have been living at their designated address?
  6 - Have the details of any of these "missing" offenders been passed to other police forces and if so how many?
  7 - How many of the "missing" offenders are suspected to have left the UK?
  8 - Is it possible for you to give me the details of any "missing" offenders such as name, age, details of convictions and a photograph.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 24(2) National Security;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;
Section 40(5) Personal information
This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.
Sections 23 and 40 are absolute exemptions, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.  In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.
In relation to Section 40, subsection (5) by what appears to be a legislative error by those formulating the law is a class based qualified exemption (as opposed to being an absolute exemption, as is the rest of Section 40) meaning that consideration must be given as to whether there is a public interest in neither confirming nor denying the information exists is the appropriate response.
By confirming or denying whether individuals have or are being investigated would contravene the First Principle of the 1998 Data Protection Act which states that personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and that a public authority must handle people’s personal data only in ways they would reasonable expect. Under subsection 2 of Section 40 of The Freedom of Information Act, information is exempt information if it constitutes personal information of which the applicant is not the data subject. In order to be considered exempt personal information, the information must satisfy one of two conditions. It must either be information which would be exempt from disclosure to the data subject under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, or disclosure of the information would contravene any of the Data Protection Principles or cause damage or distress to the data subject.
 
On this occasion the information requested is not only personal information it is clearly Sensitive personal information which is a special category of personal data, about which the rules of processing are stricter and covers a number of categories, one of which is information which relates to actual and alleged criminal acts and would contravene the first principle of the data Protection Act 1998 - fair and lawful processing , what are the likely expectations of the data subjects, in that would they expect the Cleveland Police to release their personal details to the world, since release of information under The Freedom of Information Act 2000, is release to the world at large and not just to the individual applicant and as such I believe to do so would amount to unfair processing and hence therefore is exempt under Sections 40(2)(a), 40(3)(a)(i), and 40(3)(b).
Sections 24, and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test. 
Overall harm for partial NCND
Whilst every effort should be made to release information under FOIA on this occasion we should be mindful that release under FOIA is a disclosure to the world, not just to the individual making the request and to confirm whether or not information is held pertinent to this request would reveal policing intelligence, about persons within the Cleveland Police force area, being involved in or convicted of a Terrorist Act or terrorist-related offence or of persons being subject to monitoring as part of a multi-agency public protection arrangement (MAPPA).

Public Interest Considerations
Section 24 – National Security
Factors favouring disclosure
The threat from national and international terrorism is ever present and the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and resources are distributed within an area of policing.  In the current financial climate of cuts and with the call for transparency of public spending disclosure would enable improved public debate.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Disclosure of operational information, no matter how generic, cannot be in the public interest if on-going or future operations or investigations to protect the security of the United Kingdom would be compromised.  Security measures are put in place to protect the community we serve.  As evidenced within the harm disclosure would have an impact on certain intelligence operations which could have implications for National Security.
Section 31 – Law Enforcement
Factors favouring disclosure
The release of this information would provide an insight into the Police Service and enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police in providing officers with an opportunity to work outside of their force’s jurisdiction in order to enhance their police knowledge and skills which assists in providing transparency in the way the Police Service carry out their day-to-day delivery of effective law enforcement.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Specific information relating to terrorism is valuable intelligence which could be manipulated to hinder law enforcement capabilities by providing a valuable asset to individuals and/or organisations wishing to commit crime.  Vulnerabilities and capabilities would be highlighted.  Offender’s intent on committing criminal behaviour could create a mosaic of data and build up a picture of known terrorist incidents and identify areas of vulnerability or non-detection.
Overall balancing test 
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that any investigations into terrorism are being investigated effectively, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in these highly sensitive areas. 
Any information identifying the focus of specific policing activity, such as details of arrests relating to terrorism or persons being on  a ‘watch list’, could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety, and have a negative impact on both National Security and law enforcement.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of National Security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.  It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.

Reference: 9244-17
Date: 17/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 19th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you,

PART ONE
1. How many serving police officers are currently on your force?
a) As at 31st March 2017 there were 1308 serving officers (headcount)

2. How many of these officers have second jobs/outside business interests?
3. What are these jobs/outside business interests?
In relation to questions 2 and 3 for the current year (2017) Cleveland Police would rely upon;

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Cleveland Police when refusing such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you  the applicant with a notice which (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption and (c) states (if it would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption(s) applies.

Notice of Non-Disclosure:
We are not disclosing the above requested information pursuant to the exemption provisions of Section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Section 21 of the Act (Information Reasonably Accessible by Other Means) states that information is exempt information if it is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Section 21 is an absolute exemption and where information falls within the scope of an absolute exemption, a public authority is not obliged to communicate it to an applicant and is also not obliged to comply with the duty to confirm or deny the existence of the information requested.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this part of your request.


PART TWO (Same as above, but for 2012)
1. How many serving police officers were on your force in 2012?
a) As at 31st March 2012 (2011/12) there were 1548 serving officers (headcount) and as at 31st March 2013 (2012/13) there were 1483 serving officers (headcount)
2. How many of these officers had second jobs/outside business interests in 2012?
a)There were a total of 129 live business interests listed, 111 police, 5 PCSO and 3 Support Staff but as some are proper so officers/PCSO’s/Staff may be listed more than once
3. What were these jobs/outside business interests?
Please see that attached list.

To ensure that the information is suitable for comparison we have provided data for the same periods.  We have therefore provided figures in relation to officer numbers for 31st March 2017 (2016/17) and for 31st March 2012 (2011/12) and 31st March 2013 (2012/13).  In relation to question2 this information is available on the Cleveland police website www.cleveland.police.uk once on the website there is a menu icon at the top left of the page if you enter Freedom of Information in the search box it will take you to the correct page.  On this page there is a list down the left and side of the page and there you will find a section entitled ‘Lists & Registers’ if you click on this it will take you to a page that lists the type of ‘second job (business interest) up to 31st December 2016 this list will be updated again at the start of the new calendar year.  Please note this is a rolling list and contains details of all live business interests.  We have attached a copy of the list we hold, from a previous request, for 2012 (this list it titled 01.01.13 but it is all live business interests up to and including 31st December 2012)

Reference: 9243-17
Date: 17/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 19th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the below information.

1. How many dogs did your Police force report as stolen in 2017?
2. For those dogs reported as stolen in 2017, what breeds were they in each case?
3. For those dogs reported as stolen in 2017, what was the age of dogs in each case?
4. For those dogs reported as stolen in 2017, where were the dogs when they were taken? E.g. from the home, garden etc.
5. For those dogs reported as stolen in 2017, how many dogs were later recovered and returned to owner?
We have made enquiries within the force and have attached a document that holds all of the information requested that we have been able to retrieve.  The local police area (LPA) relates to Stockton, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Langbaurgh.

Reference: 9241-17
Date: 18/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 18th December.  I note you seek the following information:

1. The name of the company currently supplying energy to your premises, for electricity and gas.
2. The name of the tariff that the electricity and gas are supplied by.
3. Your annual energy bill cost for the past financial year.

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Electricity
REFERENCE: NEPO301
START DATE: 01/04/2014
CURRENT END DATE: 31/03/2019
FINAL END DATE SUBJECT TO EXTENSION(S): 31/03/2019
CONTRACT AWARD NOTICE: 2014/S 057-094805
SUPPLIER: npower
ANNUAL COST 2016-2017: £783,850.00
Gas
REFERENCE: NEPO302
START DATE: 01/04/2015
CURRENT END DATE: 31/03/2020
FINAL END DATE SUBJECT TO EXTENSION(S): 31/03/2020
CONTRACT AWARD NOTICE: 2014/S 236-415067
SUPPLIERS: Corona Energy
ANNUAL COST 2016-2017: £154,450.00

Reference: 9240-17
Date: 17/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you,

The title of every problem profile commissioned and produced by or on behalf of Cleveland Police from 01/01/2010 to the present day.
Following enquiries within the force we have been advised that Cleveland Police have only held a centralised list of problem profiles since 2014 and we have therefore provided you with a list since that date.
Children and young people, March 2014
Mental health and suicide, March 2014
Prostitution, July 2014
Child Sexual Exploitation, November 2014
Prostitution,
Criminal damage and arson, February 2014
Domestic Abuse, May 2015
Anti-social behaviour (personal), October 2015
Child Sexual Exploitation, November 2015
Cyber Crime in Cleveland, July 2016
Prostitution in Cleveland, November 2016
Online Child Sexual Abuse, October 2017

It should be noted that these are not all created because of a specific problem it may have been created as a containment strategy in case a problem arose


 

Reference: 9237-17
Date: 18/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 18th December 2017.  I note you seek the following information:

I would like to know how many people have been charged for using social media on their mobile phone whilst driving during the dates January 2016 to December 2017. I’m asking this because I have seen the number of people ‘Snapping’ and driving on the rise.

Could you provide me with provide details of the number of fixed penalty tickets issued for 'Mobile Phone
Offences' within the timescale specified and if it's possible and can you provide me with the ages of those who have offended?
As this will give me a good indication if it's younger people using their mobile phone more whilst driving etc.

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve
 – 666 tickets were issued in total for using a mobile phone whilst driving between 01/01/2016 – 31/12/2017. Of those, 232 were issued to people between the ages of 18-30.

Reference: 9236-17
Date: 18/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on the 18th December 2017.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Can you please provide me FOI data on the number of domestic violence incidents reported to your police force for each quarter of the year from Q1 2015 (1st Jan to 31st March) to Q3 2017(1st July to 30th Sept) for each local authority area in your police force. If you have any separate policing areas like airports or seaports please include that data as well as domestic violence can occur while people are waiting to leave the country.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve with regards to domestic abuse incidents.

 

Reference: 9235-17
Date: 22/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 18th December 2017.  Apologies for the late response due to staffing issues within this office.   I note you seek the following information:

I’d like to have the following data from 2011 to 2017 (financial year) broken down by year:
1. How many children were abducted by a parent? (Home Office classification 13/1) Please provide this data broken down by:
• - Age and gender of the victim at the time.
• - Age, gender and nationality of the parent (please specify if the person has two nationalities).
• - Name of the country each child has been taken to.
2. How many children were abducted by other persons? (Home Office classification 13/2). Please specify if kidnapper was a relative or an unknown person.            
3. How many kidnappings happened (Home Office classification 36) when the victim was aged under 18 at the time? Please specify if kidnapper was a relative or an unknown person.

We have made enquiries within the Force and can advise you that we are able to disclose the following;
Total number of abductions
2011/12 – 3 
2012/13 – 4 
2013/14 – 2 
2014/15 – 10 
2015/16 – 7 
2016/17 – 13 
2017/18 – 5  
Of these;
2011/12 – 2 were relative and 1 was a non-relative, known person 
2012/13 – 4 were relative 
2013/14 – 2 non-relative, known person 
2014/15 – 8 non-relative, known person, 1 suspect parent believed to have removed child to Europe and 1 suspect parent removed two children to an unknown location
2015/16 – 5 non-relative, known person, 1 non-relative, unknown person and 1 suspect parent child not removed from UK, unknown location 
2016/17 – 10 non-relative, known person, 1 non-relative, unknown person, 1 non-relative, unclear if person known and 1 suspect parent believed child removed from UK.
2017/18 – 2 non-relative, known person, 1 suspect parent believed child not removed from UK, 1 suspect parent child possibly removed from UK and 1 suspect parent child possibly removed from UK

With regard to information not provided we would advise that;
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 30(1) Investigations;
Section 40(2) Personal Information

Section 30(1) – Investigations and proceedings conducted by the Public Authority
In relation to the above qualified exemption we are obliged to conduct a public interest test on the information held and here are our considerations:
Factors favouring disclosure
Disclosure would provide a full representation of all incidents which relate to child abduction providing a better awareness to the general public on the subject revealing that such incidents are dealt with appropriately and responsibly.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Any disclosure in relation to on-going/unresolved investigations could result in the prejudice of those investigations. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law and protecting the communities we serve and all information held, has been held, for the purpose of an investigation to ascertain whether anyone should be charged with an offence.  All redactions have therefore been made so as to ensure that should criminal proceedings occur in the future the information is not prejudiced 
Balancing Test:
We therefore consider that the factors favouring non-disclosure outweigh the factors favouring disclosure and as such we will not be disclosing information relating to on-going investigations. Although it is important that the public are apprised of the nature of such investigations, I consider that when weighed against the risk of prejudicing the outcome of any on-going investigations, the factors favouring non-disclosure take precedence.

Section 40(2) Personal Information
Section 40(2) is an absolute and class based exemption and so requires no harm or public interest test to be undertaken.
To disclose the redacted information would breach principle 1(fairly and lawfully processed) and principle 6 (processed in line with the rights of the data subject) of the Data Protection Act 1998 as it may lead to the identification of an individual or individuals concerned in such cases or allow further information to be gleaned around the circumstances of each case providing a mosaic picture of such offences.

 

Reference: 9233-17
Date: 17/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 16th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 18th December 2017.  I note you seek access to the below information.

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and would be grateful for your response by email to the following relating to paper custody suits.
1.  Does your force use paper suits in its custody suites?
a)  Yes

2.  Please indicate which type of suit(s) your force uses:
i.   Boiler all-in-one style suits
ii.  Separate top and trouser paper suits
iii. Both all-in-one and separates
a) Cleveland Police use the separate top and trouser paper suits

3. Which supplier does your force use to source its paper suits?
a) Charles Fellowes Suppliers Ltd.

 

Reference: 9231-17
Date: 21/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  In your e-mail you state that you sent us a request on 31st October 2017 but we have searched all of our mail boxes we have been unable to locate any request from you.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you:

1. The number of reports of attacks recorded per annum involving acid, noxious or other corrosive substances between 2012 and 2017 inclusive, defined by individual calendar years.
2012 – 0 
2013 – 1 
2014 – 4 
2015 – 7 
2016 – 4 
2017 – 5 to the date of this request
For each of the years;
2. How many victims were female? & how many victims were male?
2012 – 0 
2013 – 1 Female & 0 Male 
2014 – 1 Female & 3 Male 
2015 – 1 Female & 6 Male 
2016 – 2 Female & 2 Male 
2017 – 41 Female & 4 Male  to the date of this request

3. The Age groups of the victims – under 20, over 20
2012 – 0 
2013 – 1, under 20 
2014 – 1 under 20 & 3 over 20 
2015 – 2 under 20, 4 over 20 & 1 unknown age 
2016 – 1 under 20 & 3 over 20 
2017 – 1 under 20 & 4 over 20

4. How many of the reported crimes using acid or other corrosive substance resulted in a suspect being charged?’’
2012 – 0 
2013 – 0 (1 cautioned)
2014 – 1 (1 Cautioned & 1 reported for summons) 
2015 – 1 
2016 – 0 
2017 – 1 (1 on-going & 1 community resolution) to the date of this request

The information provided relates to all noxious substances including acid, bleach, lighter fluid, ammonia, paint thinner oven cleaner etc.


 

Reference: 9230-17
Date: 17/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 15th December.  I note you seek the following information:

1. The dates on which the board/panel has met since March 2014 or, if the board meets on a regular basis, the frequency of those meetings (ie, every week/month/quarter?)

It meets on a three weekly basis.

2. The average length of time between an application being submitted and the applicant being informed of disclosure/non-disclosure. If it would be easier and quicker to find, the shortest time and the longest time would suffice.

35 days

3. Of the requests made under the DVDS – “Right to Ask” – in the 12 months to June 2017 that resulted in no information being disclosed:
a)  how many were refused because there was no information to pass on?

 19 applications of right to ask were refused because there was no DV to disclose between
June 16 – June 17.

b)  how many were refused because disclosure was not deemed appropriate or necessary?

20 applications of right to ask were refused because they were not applicable/necessary between June 16 – June 17

4. Of the requests made police or other agency under the DVDS – “Right to Know” – in the 12 months to June 2017 that resulted in no information being disclosed:
a)  how many were refused because there was no information to pass on?

4 applications of right to know were refused because there was no DV to disclose between
June 16 – June 17.

b)  how many were refused because disclosure was not deemed appropriate or necessary?

47 applications of right to know were refused because they were not applicable/necessary between June 16 – June 17.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

 

Reference: 9229-17
Date: 20/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 15th December.  I note you seek the following information:

It concerned the number of drink-spikings in your Police Force Area between 1998-2017, broken down into bi-annual periods.

Since I imagine you are just beginning work on it, can I please request that you conduct an MO code search of all crimes for the terms 'drink spike' and 'drink spiking'?

Previously I asked for just three crime codes to be searched. I have since learnt that drink-spiking incidents are often coded under other crime codes, so a general MO keyword search of all crimes will be necessary to find all of them.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.  The analyst used the sub class codes plus a key word search using “spike” and “spiking”.

 

 

Reference: 9227-17
Date: 17/01/2018

I write in connection with your request dated 15th December.  I note you seek the following information:

1. In relation to the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, otherwise known as "Sarah's Law", how many requests has your force received asking if someone who has sufficient access to children has a sex offender's record? Please limit this inquiry to cases dealt with after 31.12.2016.
2. (i) In how many of these requests did the subject have a sex offender's record AND you disclosed the conviction to an interested party? (ii) Of these positive returns how many of the individuals were registered sex offenders.
3. (i) In how many of these requests did the subject have a sex offender's record AND you did NOT disclose the conviction to an interested party? (ii) In how many of these cases was the subject a registered sex offender.
4. Of the most recent ten cases up to where you disclosed an offender's record please state the main/primary offence that caused concern?

Having made enquiries within the Force all the information we have been able to retrieve are below:

(1)  Since 1/1/17 we have received 66 requests for Child Sex Offender Disclosure.
(2)  (i) 4 (ii) 4
(3)  (i) 15 (ii) 15
(4) Out of the most recent ten disclosures, one was an RSO, offence of concern Rape, 6 were         domestic violence and three were drug related.

Reference: 9226-17
Date: 17/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th December which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

1. Who is your current WAN and LAN supplier?
BT
2. Do you have a secure Wi-Fi installed to all sites – if not where to.
Yes
3. If answer to 2 is YES who is the current supplier
Sopra-Steria
4. Do you use Network storage and if so in what form.
2 x SAN’s – Primary and Secondary
5. Are you interested in SaaS, Cloud Storage or PaaS and IaaS
Yes
6. Are all the above supported, by whom and when are they to be renewed.
SaaS – Unisys, rolling contract for a National Police Service.
IaaS & Cloud Storage – E2E Assure Ltd, Oct 2019
Cloud Storage – Egress Software, low volume requirements on annual subscription agreements.
7. Are you looking to renew or replace any of the above in Financial Year 2018/2019
No
8. If answer to 7 is yes by what means will you procure.

9. Who is responsible for Networks and Storage within the Force?
Outsourced to Sopra-Steria until Oct 2020.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information that we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9223-17
Date: 16/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 14th December.  I note you seek the following information:

I would like to know the following information

(a)               How many reports of burglary of domestic dwellings were received by your force between 24th December 2016 – 31st December 2016
(b)               How many of these reports resulted in (i) active investigations (ii) prosecutions

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve with regard to Burglaries and outcomes for the time specified.

Charged/Summonsed – 6
No suspect insufficient evidence – 3
CPS – names suspect, victim supports but evidential difficulties – 1
Police decide insufficient evidence to prosecute – 6
Victim withdraws support 2
Suspect not identified enquiry complete – 41
Adult simple caution - 1
Total = 60

Reference: 9221-17
Date: 15/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 13th December 2017.  I note you seek access to the following information:

1. Is your force currently using automated facial recognition systems or biometric facial recognition technology?
2. If yes, please provide detail
       a) of the system/technology the force is currently using
       b) for what purpose the system/technology is being used

      3. If no, is your force planning to introduce automated facial recognition systems or any other form of biometric facial recognition technology in the next 2 years?

        a) If yes, please state for what purpose will the system/technology be introduced.

Having made enquiries within the Force we can confirm we use PND as a retrospective tool. We do not use any ‘live time’ software. PND would be used to identify suspects from a number of sources; these might be still photographs from CCTV at a crime scene, or evidence gatherer footage from a football match for example. PND is generally used if we have not identified through other methods.
However we would also rely on:
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(2) National Security;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;
This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

Sections 24, and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test. 

Overall harm for partial NCND
Any disclosure under FOI is a release to the public at large.  Confirming or denying that any other information relating to the covert practise of facial recognition would show criminals what the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the force are, allowing them to target specific areas of the UK to conduct their criminal/terrorist activities.  Confirming or denying the specific circumstances in which the Police Service may or may not deploy the use of facial recognition would lead to an increase of harm to covert investigations and compromise law enforcement.  This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.

Public Interest Considerations
Section 24 – National Security
Factors favouring disclosure
The threat from national and international terrorism is ever present and the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and resources are distributed within an area of policing.  In the current financial climate of cuts and with the call for transparency of public spending disclosure would enable improved public debate.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Disclosure of operational information, no matter how generic, cannot be in the public interest if on-going or future operations or investigations to protect the security of the United Kingdom would be compromised.  Security measures are put in place to protect the community we serve.  As evidenced within the harm disclosure would have an impact on certain intelligence operations which could have implications for National Security.
Section 31 – Law Enforcement
Factors favouring disclosure
The release of this information would provide an insight into the Police Service and enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police in providing officers with an opportunity to work outside of their force’s jurisdiction in order to enhance their police knowledge and skills which assists in providing transparency in the way the Police Service carry out their day-to-day delivery of effective law enforcement.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Specific information relating to terrorism is valuable intelligence which could be manipulated to hinder law enforcement capabilities by providing a valuable asset to individuals and/or organisations wishing to commit crime.  Vulnerabilities and capabilities would be highlighted.  Offender’s intent on committing criminal behaviour could create a mosaic of data and build up a picture of known terrorist incidents and identify areas of vulnerability or non-detection.
Overall balancing test 
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that any investigations into terrorism are being investigated effectively, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in these highly sensitive areas. 
Any information identifying the focus of specific policing activity, such as details of arrests relating to terrorism or persons being on a ‘watch list’ could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety, and have a negative impact on both National Security and law enforcement.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of National Security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.  It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.

Reference: 9218-17
Date: 11/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 12th December which was received by Cleveland Police on the 13th.  I note you seek access to the following information:

The Policing and Crime Act 2017 comes into force on 15th December 2017.  In relation the Act, please would you provide the following information:

1. How many officers are suspended, or prevented from retiring from your force/service under the 2008 Police Regulations?

No officers are currently suspended under the 2008 Police Regulations

2. Have you made representations to The Home Office or any other organisation(s) to highlight the fact that officers under the 2008 regulations, in your force/service, will not be able to retire whilst others held under the 2012 act onwards will?

No representations being made

3. How many of those officers suspended under the 2008 Regulations are being investigated by the IPCC?

None

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9216-17
Date: 11/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 11th December.  I note you seek the following information:

1. How many dedicated Road Policing Unit (traffic) cars were on your force’s fleet as of the end of November 2017? 6
2. How many of the same vehicles appeared on the fleet at the end of November 2014, and
November 2011? 0
How many dedicated Road Policing Unit (traffic) cars were on your force’s fleet as of the end of November 2017? 6
2. How many of the same vehicles appeared on the fleet at the end of November 2014, and
November 2011? 0
3. Can you provide a list of the road policing unit (traffic) vehicles on the fleet currently (as of the end of November 2017), including the make and model, year of registration, fuel type, whether it is marked or unmarked and the cost of each vehicle to purchase including modifications?

BMW 3 Series, Diesel, Marked, 2016 x2
BMW 3 Series, Diesel, Marked, 2015 x1
BMW 3 Series, Diesel, Marked, 2017 plate x1
Skoda Octavia, Diesel, Unmarked, 2016 plate x1
Skoda Octavia, Unleaded, Unmarked, 2016 plate x1

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve. Additionally in relation to question 3 we would also rely on the following:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon, Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act requires that I provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) state (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information relevant to your request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 31(1) (a) & (b) Law Enforcement;
This should not be taken as an indication that the information you have requested is or is not held by Cleveland Police.
Section 31 is a prejudiced based qualified exemption and there is a requirement for us to evidence harm in confirming or denying whether information is held and also to consider the public interest.
Factors favouring Disclosure:
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve and there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations to ensure investigations, enquiries, etc. are dealt with appropriately.
Factors favouring Non-Disclosure:
Irrespective of whether information is or is not held, to confirm to the world whether a police force was or was not investigating a particular matter or whether any information was or was not held about specified subject could reveal policing activity. The Police Service will never disclose

Reference: 9215-17
Date: 11/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 10th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 11th December 2017.  I note you seek access to the below information.

I am making the following request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI).
Since the introduction of Domestic Homicide Reviews in 2011, following the implementation of Section 9 of the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004, please could you tell me - with reference to Cleveland Police:

1. How many domestic homicides have occurred in your force area where the victim was a male?
a) within the timescale specified there have been two domestic homicides where the victim was a male
2. Of these domestic homicides, what was the gender breakdown of the victim and perpetrator?
2011 – 2012 – 0 
2012 – 2013 – Male Victim, Male Perpetrator
2013 – 2014 – 0 
2014 – 2015 – 0 
2015 – 2016 – Male Victim, Male Perpetrator, Historical Case concluded 2017
2016 – 2017 – 0

3. Of these domestic homicides, in how many cases has the force informed the relevant Community Safety Partnership (CSP) of an incident? i.e. made a Domestic Homicide Review notification.
a) We are unable to ascertain if a Community Safety Partnership was informed.
4. Please provide the names of the CSPs which have received notifications.
a) N/A

Reference: 9214-17
Date: 11/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 10th December 2017.  I note you seek access to the following information:

1) How many crime reports in the last five calendar years ( 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 so far) have mentioned social media? Please could you search for the following platforms/ key words:

Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Snapchat

*NB: I realised 2017 is an incomplete year, but if you could provide it for as many months as you have that would be great.

2) For each crime report please can you provide as much detail as possible about the nature of the offence and how many fell into the following categories

Having made enquiries within the Force the analyst has provided a document giving all the information they have been able to retrieve.  They have categorised them but please note we only record Fraud and Forgery information that is not a NFIB (National Fraud Investigation Bureau) crime.  We are unable provide more detail as this would take over the 18 hours stipulated as each record would be subject to data cleansing to ensure no personal or confidential information is disclosed.

Reference: 9213-17
Date: 11/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 9th December 2017.  I note you seek access to the following information:

 1)      The number of incidents you have responded to where "YouTube", "You Tube" or "utube" was mentioned on the callout record as part of the incident, in each calendar year from 2013 to 2016 inclusive, broken down by calendar year (I appreciate that 2017 may not have a full calendar year's worth of results, but would appreciate the data year to date).

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

  2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 to end Dec
youtube 22 22 25 44 34
you tube 16 15 16 27 23
utube  23 28 26 54 37 
Total  61 65 67 125 94

 

Reference: 9210-17
Date: 10/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 8th December.  I note you seek the following information:

 I acknowledge receipt of your enquiry dated 08 November 2017 requesting information concerning The number of investigations your force has carried out into allegations of the following offences in which the suspect was aged 18 or under.
 a) making indecent images of a child/children
 b) possessing indecent images of a child/children
 c) distributing indecent images of a child/children
I would like this information for each of the following financial years:
 2014/15
 2015/16
 2016/17

This was clarified and you now require:
If you can still proceed on the basis you outline below I would be happy to receive the number of recorded crimes and the number of arrests.

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve with regards to crimes and arrests. 

2014/15 – 2 arrests both aged 17 - Distribute an indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child (recordable)
2015/16 – 2 arrests both aged 16 - 1. Distribute an indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child (recordable) 1. Make indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child (recordable)
2016/17 – 1 arrest one aged 16 - Possess indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child (recordable)

Crimes:

2014/15 Offence    Suspects age 
086/02 - making indecent images of children 17
086/10 - possessing indecent images of children 14
086/02 - making indecent images of children 16
2015/16
086/02 - making indecent images of children 13
086/02 - making indecent images of children 14
086/10 - possessing indecent images of children 15
086/10 - possessing indecent images of children 15
086/02 - making indecent images of children 13
2016/17
086/02 - making indecent images of children 14

 


 

Reference: 9209-17
Date: 11/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 8th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below is the content of your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

You originally asked for details of burglaries and car theft, occurring in a specified area in the 3 years leading up to the date of your request.  Our response indicated that there had been only been 1 such recorded incident.  
You have indicated that you were unaware that our answer would be so specific and would not include related incidents such as anti-social behaviour and now asked for “details of these and any other reported criminal or anti-social activity in this small area for the last 3 years, providing a rough idea of the dates they occurred together with any other information that you are allowed to give.
We have made further enquiries, with the force analysts, expanding the search parameters, and below is the information retrieved, please note this information is a ‘snapshot of information’ available at the time the retrieval programme was run and can change each time the programme is run.

October 2015
Criminal Damage – Damage to wooden garden fence of privately owned dwelling.

February 2016
As provided in previous request - person or persons unknown reached through the letterbox and removed property facilitating the theft of a vehicle.

November 2016
Interference with a motor vehicle – quarter light broken window wound down, not known if anything stolen.

March 2017
Theft from Motor vehicle – unknown persons gain access to vehicle by unknown means remove items and then make off in unknown direction and by unknown means

August 2018
Arson not endangering Life – youths walking in alley way throwing a piece of burning rag at each other which comes over the garden fence making contact with a small pile of dead leaves causing slight scorching to adjacent fence .

More information may be available to you via Crime Mapper details of which were provided to you by my colleague, via telephone on 8th December 2017.

Reference: 9208-17
Date: 09/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 8th December 2017.  I note you seek access to the following information:

1. Please inform me if Cleveland Police vehicle inspectors routinely test tyre pressure when inspecting collision vehicles following a serious or fatal collision.
a) Yes, this is done by Collision Investigation Unit Officers
2. Please inform me if Cleveland Police vehicle inspectors routinely compare the tested tyre pressure to the manufacturers pressure guide when inspecting collision vehicles following a serious or fatal collision.
a) Yes, this is done by Collision Investigation Unit Officers

3. Please provide me with a copy of any Cleveland Police Policy or Procedure which covers the testing of tyre pressure in the circumstances of a serious or fatal collision as at 2009 and as at 2017.
a) We have made enquiries with the department that publish and update Policy and Guidance documents for Cleveland Police and they have advised that there is no policy for this.
a) There is currently no Cleveland Police policy in respect of the checking of tyre pressures at the scene of a collision.
4. Please provide me with a copy of any Cleveland Police Training materials which covers the testing of tyre pressure in the circumstances of a serious or fatal collision as at 2009 and as at 2017.
a) Following enquiries within the force we can advise that Cleveland Police do not deliver any training on this subject so our answer must be no information held.  However we can advise that this subject would be covered by a Vehicle Examiners Course of which the content and delivery may vary.

 

Reference: 9206-17
Date: 09/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 8th December 2017.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve.

Freedom Of Information Act Request - Cleveland Police Alcohol Breath Test Procedures 2009 & 2017

Cleveland Police have a duty to police the roads.

That duty involves police officers checking if drivers of vehicles are impaired by the use of alcohol.

I presume there is a procedure that Cleveland Police officers are required to follow to conduct alcohol breath tests with the public.

I presume there is a procedure that Cleveland Police officers are required to follow to record and store the results of the alcohol breath tests that they have carried out with the public.

I would be grateful if you could search for and provide me with the following information under the Freedom of Information Act.

1. A copy of the 2017 Cleveland Police Alcohol Breath Test Procedure, covering the testing procedure and the storage of test results.

2. A copy of the 2009 Cleveland Police Alcohol Breath Test procedure, covering the testing procedure and the storage of test results.

Please conduct a search for the 2 procedures.
Please confirm or deny if Cleveland Police hold a copy of the 2 procedures.
Please provide the 2 procedures to me.

We have made enquiries within the force and can advise you that all data from 2008 onwards has been downloaded from the Breath Test Devices and is stored centrally by Performance and Quality Review team who forward our submissions on to the Home Office annually. We have also contacted the department that publish and update Policy and Guidance documents for Cleveland Police and the Cleveland Police Roads Policing Department and they have advised that as it is legislation there is no policy for this as this procedure it is covered by:
Section 6 Road Traffic Act 1988 (Power to Administer Preliminary Tests)
The legislation covers Breath Tests for
Suspicion of alcohol consumption and driving
Driver commits a Road Traffic Offence
The driver is involved in a Road Traffic Collision.

 

Reference: 9260-17
Date: 09/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 8th December 2017.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

1. How much does it cost on average to house one prisoner? Please include a breakdown of the costs – custody staff, meals, cell accommodation, hygiene packs and any other related costs.
2. Could you also break down the charges down for a) 0-12 hours b) 0-24 hours?
We have made enquiries with our Finance Department and have been advised that we unable to provide actual data for any one prisoner but we are able to provide data in relation to the recharge costs for UK Border Agency Detentions in an attempt to assist you with this request.
Initial Detention Cost
Total Force Staff and Non-Staff Custody Salary Cost    £3,231,912

Divided by:
(Days per year x Hours per day x Number of in-service Cells)   (365 x 7.25 x 65)
Initial 1 hour Detention Staffing Cost      £18.79
Plus: Catering (£3.68 per hours / 12)      £0.31
Cell blankets, towels & hygiene (included in Tascor Services)   £0.00
Heating, lighting, cell cleaning and decontamination    £9.00
Initial 1 hour Detention Staff and standard items charge   £28.10
5% Administration on Initial hour £1.40
Total Charge for Initial 1 hour detention period     £29.50

Additional Hours
Total Charge for Initial 1 hour detention period     £18.79
Plus: Catering (£3.68 per hours / 12)      £0.31
Cell blankets, towels & hygiene (included in Tascor Services)   £0.00
Heating, lighting, cell cleaning and decontamination    £0.75
Total Charge of each subsequent 1 hour detention period   £19.85

Reference: 9205-17
Date: 10/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 7th December.  I note you seek the following information:

1) How many attacks by dogs, both on humans and other animals, were recorded in the last five calendar years in your area?
2) What breeds of dog were these attacks committed by?
3) How many of these breeds are classed as “dangerous” under the Dangerous Dogs Act and are included in Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) policy?
4) If said dog was registered under BSL, how many of these animals were impounded or destroyed following the attack?
5) How many dogs placed in kennels during BSL confirmation procedure are ultimately deemed to be “dangerous” under the terms of the Dangerous Dog Act?
6) If a convicted dog was owned under BSL, did the owner have a history of crime, or were they considered an issue by the local Police force?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that searching the Case Management system for “dog attacks” identifies 537 incidents.  For question 2 this would require retrieving and reading each incident and manually collating data to ascertain what the breed of dog is and this possibly might not be recorded this would give less than 2 minutes per record. And to also try and provide answers for questions 3, 4 and 5 would require that an expert in BSL check through any data retrieved.  Based on this it is therefore estimated that to answer question 2 alone would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.  

Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  As a gesture of goodwill outside of the act below are the number of incidents for each of the calendar years:

2013 – 73
2014 – 117
2015 – 118
2016 – 112
2017 – 117 

Reference: 9204-17
Date: 09/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 7th December.  I note you seek the following information:

I would like to make a freedom of information request as to whether you use a company called “Super Recognisers International” or any of their subsidiaries.

Having made enquiries within the Force and with regards to “Super Recognisers International” they are not on a list of suppliers we use.  If you require the subsidiaries checking please supply a list of all the companies you are interested in and we will facilitate a check of those names to see if they are on our suppliers list. 

Reference: 9203-17
Date: 08/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Please supply details of the number of closure notices issued against brothels and/or premises suspected of being used for prostitution over the past three years. (January 2014 to December 2017 – amended to January 2015 – December 2017 in e-mail dated 8th December 2017).  Please supply the date and address where these were issued (just street name fine)
a) We have made enquiries within the force and have been advised that there have been no closures of premises under ASB powers due to them being a brothel or used for prostitution over the last three years.

Please supply details of the number of crimes that have been reported at an address where a closure notice has also been issued.  Please supply the date these crimes were reported on and the address where they were reported (just street name fine).
a) Following enquiries within the force and the answer provided above our answer to this part of your request is none.

Reference: 9202-17
Date: 09/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 7th December.  I note you seek the following information:

Could you tell me if all vehicles by your Armed Response Unit are partially armoured?
If not, has this policy changed from previous years?
If the policy has changed could you provide an explanation for it altering?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(1) National Security;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;

With Sections 24(1) and 31(3) being prejudiced based qualified exemptions, there is a requirement for us to evidence harm confirming or denying information is held and also consider the public interest.

Harm in complying with Section 1(1)(a) – to confirm or nor whether information is held

The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. In order to achieve these objectives we are allowed to use reasonable force where necessary to do so.  In the ultimate circumstance this can include the use of lethal force but the rule of thumb is to use the minimum amount necessary to achieve the objective. In reality this equates to the use of the minimum amount of force required to overcome the violence, used or threatened, by those wishing to cause harm.

Section 24(2) National Security
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held
The public are entitled to know why decisions are made and how resources are distributed within an area of policing. Confirmation would inform the public that Cleveland Police provide an appropriate level of tactical equipment within the armed response vehicles for authorised firearms officers to utilise if required. This would provide transparency with regard to the use of public funds in as much as the funds are being used correctly and appropriately ensuing the Armed Policing Departments within individual forces are equipped adequately.
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a)
Whilst there is a public interest in providing reassurance that Cleveland Police is appropriately and effectively dealing with threats posed by terrorist organisations, there is a strong public interest in safeguarding national security and the welfare and safety of the general public.  Taking into account the current security climate within the United Kingdom, no information which may aid a terrorist should be disclosed. To what extent this information may aid a terrorist is unknown, but it is clear that it will have an impact on a force’s ability to monitor terrorist activity.  The public entrust the Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety and protection, as well of the safety of their officers and staff.  The only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with what is placed into the public domain. Confirmation or denial has the potential to undermine on-going and future operations to protect the Security of the United Kingdom, e.g. counter terrorism activity. The risk of significant harm or even death to the community at large would be increased.
Any incident that results from such a disclosure would by default affect National Security.  Therefore by confirming or denying that information exists relevant to this request would harm the close relationship that exists with such organisations, where trust and confidence has been build up.
 

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a)

There is a public interest in the community being made aware of all the facts relating to Armed Policing in order to ensure complete openness and transparency as there is often speculation and rumour with regard to the use of firearms within the Police Service. In this case revealing the whether or not armed response vehicles are partially armoured would provide transparency and may enhance public debate into this type of policing.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a)
The deployment of authorised firearms officers is measured and authorised by chief officers after careful consideration in order to protect the public and apprehend individuals who use lethal weapons as part of their criminality. To confirm information is held would reveal tactical capability and would place Cleveland Police at a tactical disadvantage. In addition, confirmation or denial may also ‘create’ a fear of crime within the general public relating to armed policing.  Cleveland Police has a duty of care to the community at large and public safety is of paramount importance. If an FOI disclosure revealed information to the world (by citing an exemption or stating no information held) that would undermine the security of the National Infrastructure, offenders, including terrorist organisations, could use this to their advantage which would compromise public safety and more worryingly encourage offenders to carry our further crimes.  The risk to public safety cannot be ignored and Cleveland Police has a responsibility to ensure safety of individuals is protected at all times, as detailed within the harm.

Balancing Test
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing resources for specialist departments and providing reassurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively placing resources into Armed Policing, there is a strong public interest in knowing that policing activity with regard to the delivery of law enforcement is appropriate and balanced, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.  In addition, we also need to take into account the victims of terrorism. Public safety is of paramount importance and any information which would place individuals at risk and compromise the National Security of the United Kingdom, no matter how generic, is not is the public interest. The effective delivery of operational law enforcement and the National Security of the UK is crucial and of a fundamental duty to Cleveland Police. Any disclosure would have a negative impact on law enforcement and national security.  As much as there is a public interest in knowing that the delivery of law enforcement is appropriate and balanced, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test outweighs the need to confirm information is held and falls in favour of issuing a neither confirming not deny refusal.  No inference can be taken from this refusal that information does or does not exist.

Reference: 9201 - 17
Date: 08/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the below information.

Please could I make a freedom of information request for the following information about drug driving in the area Cleveland Police cover?

Please could you tell me how many drug wipe tests have been carried out in the area Cleveland Police cover since March 2015 and how many of these have been positive?  I would like the information broken down by month, up until the most recent month which has been fully recorded.  If possible, I would like the figure for cannabis and cocaine separately.

We have made enquiries within the force and have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve

 

Reference: 9200 - 17
Date: 09/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 6th December which we received in this office on the 7th December.  I note you seek the following information:

I would like to receive the following figures on police officer and staff deaths, with separate figures for police officers, PCSOs and police staff:

In each of the last five calendar years (2012-2016), how many police officers/PCSOs/staff employed by your force died (whether or not in the course of their duties)?
Of those, how many were recorded as having died by suicide each year?
Figures broken down by cause of death in each of the last five calendar years.

Having made enquiries within our Human Resources Department they are only able to provide data from 1st April 2014 and they do not record the cause of death.  The cause of death would be determined by the Coroner. 
 
 
2014/15              1 officer, 1 support staff

2015/16              1 officer

2016/17              0

Reference: 9199 - 17
Date: 18/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 6th December which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

I would like to find out the number of missing persons reported to the police in Cleveland between the 1st january 2015 to the 1st of january 2017. I would also like to know the number of times the missing person has been found within the same timescale.

Having made enquiries within the Force at the time of your request for the period 1st January 2015 to the 1st of January 2017 there 6969 reported missing of which 3 are still unaccounted for.

Reference: 9198 - 17
Date: 08/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 6th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Please provide the following data about your police force, preferably in a csv (Excel etc.) file:
The number of traffic accidents attended by your force resulting in deaths in each year 2012 - 2017 (if this year's numbers are ready yet, otherwise just up to 2016)
The number of traffic accidents attended by your force resulting in serious injury in each year 2012 - 2017 (if this year's numbers are ready yet, otherwise just up to 2016)
In the crashes attended by your force that resulted in deaths in each year 2012 -2017, how many were caused by a driver who tested positive for alcohol
In the crashes attended by your force that resulted in serious injury in each year 2012 -2017, how many were caused by a driver who tested positive for alcohol
In the crashes attended by your force that resulted in deaths in each year 2012 -2017, how many were caused by a driver who was distracted by their mobile phone
In the crashes attended by your force that resulted in serious injury in each year 2012 -2017, how many were caused by a driver who was distracted by their mobile phone
We have made enquiries with our Traffic Management & Casualty Reduction Team and they have provided the information contained in the attached document

 

Reference: 9197 - 17
Date: 08/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 6th December.  I note you seek the following information:

I'd like to know how many ram-raids have taken place across Teesside in the last five years.

I would like to know the outcomes of the raids, how many people have been arrested and charged in connection with them.

I'd like the data to span January 1, 2012 up until December 6, 2017

Having made enquiries within the Performance Quality and Review department the analyst has stated that the only way to identify “ramraids” is a key word search in the Modus Operandi (MO) field this was completed for the time period stated and at this time the answer is no information is held.

Reference: 9196 - 17
Date: 09/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 6th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date and your e-mail dated 1st January 2018 in response to our request for clarification.  I note you seek access to the below information.

I would like to submit the following Freedom of Information requests, which should cover the calendar years. 2015, 2016 and 2017 up to the 1st December, even if this is just a predicted figure.
 
Q1. How many employees does your organisation employ (full time equivalent) where their primary function covers the following disciplines:
a) Public Relations
2015 – 0
2016 – 0
2017 – 0
b) Human Resources
2015 – 3
2016 – 13
2017 – 9
c) Communications
2015 – 7.9459
2016 – 7.3513
2017 – 8.9459
d) Security (I am looking for security guards or similar who are not police officers or PCSOs). This should also include those contracted in by your force from other organisations such G4S.
2015 – 0
2016 – 0
2017 – 0
Q2. How much money has your force spent on equalities training for each of the following areas:
a) Homophobia
b) Transphobia
c) Anti-Semitism
d) Islamaphobia
e) Anti-Christian behavior and views
a) We are unable to provide the direct financial spend against the areas identified, we are focusing our current training as part of the everybody matters programme on behavioural change and cultural awareness.
 
Q3. Finally how many forms, record sheets, or similar documents that record personal details have been redesigned to remove identification of gender, so as to not exclude/discriminate against transgender people either by an officer/employee, a victim, witness, or suspect/perpetrator?  
a) We have made enquiries within the force and must advise that we are not aware of any forms that have been changed.

Reference: 9192 - 17
Date: 05/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 5th December 2017.  I note you seek the following information:

1. How many drivers aged 17 and under have been charged with taking a vehicle without consent (defined under section 12 of the Theft Act 1968) in each sequential year 2013,2014,2015,2016 and so far in 2017?

2. Please can this information (relating to taking a vehicle without consent) include the age of the drivers who have been charged

3. Could this information also please specify in which police division area these drivers were arrested

4. How many drivers aged 17 and under have been charged with aggravated vehicle taking (Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992) that at any time after the vehicle was unlawfully taken (whether by that person or another) and before it was recovered, the vehicle was driven, or death, injury or damage was caused. In each sequential year 2013,2014,2015,2016 and so far in 2017?

No information is held.

5. Please can the information relating to aggravated vehicle taking include the age of the drivers who have been charged.

6. Could this information (relating to aggravated vehicle taking) also please specify in which police division area these drivers were arrested.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.  The analyst has stated the number of persons charged not the number of drivers as we do not record that.

Reference: 9191 -17
Date: 05/01/2018

I write in connection with your request received in this office on 5th December.  I note you are seeking the following information:

I would like to know how much your police force spends per annum on policing football matches please? If you could tell me the costs for financial years a) 2012 b) 2013 c) 2014 d) 2015 e) 2016 f) 2017 I’d be most grateful. Thank you.

If you’re able to break down the costs (where and what the money is spent on) and what contribution, if any, you get from the football clubs/ The FA, I’d be most grateful. Thank you.

If possible, are you also able to tell me the top 10 most expensive fixtures to police in a) 2012 b) 2013 c) 2014 d) 2015 e) 2016 f) 2017, please? Thank you.

Having made enquiries within the Force this is all the information we have been able to retrieve. From the accounting system we can only identify the overtime costs in relation to policing the football matches. There will be a significant number of officers who will have been on their normal tour of duty and have worked on the football matches for all or part of this which would contribute to the total cost. The only way to extract this information is by way of a lengthy manual process which would exceed 18 hours.

In relation to the income we recover from the football clubs. This is determined by NPCC Charging rates which are based on a nationally agreed full cost recovery model, and principles agreed between the clubs and the Police which do not necessarily correlate to the cost incurred by the Police as there are many factors which the Police will take into account when resourcing football matches.

Income received from the football clubs for each of the requested years is as follows:-

12/13 – £205,428
13/14 – £133,520
14/15 - £93,622
15/16 - £88,660
16/17 – 192,781
17/18 (to date) - £74,712

Reference: 9190 -17
Date: 05/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 5th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

In regards to the types of contracts detailed below can you please send the Organisation’s primary contracts? Or can you please send me the contract that are above £1000.
Also, so that I understand the information you have provided to me please state information if the Organisation doesn’t have any contract I have stated within this request.

A.      Lift Service and Maintenance
B.      Air Conditioning and Ventilation Servicing and Maintenance
C.      Cleaning and Janitorial
D.      Mechanical And Electrical Maintenance
E.       Property Maintenance And Day To Day Repairs
 
1.       Contract Type – Please use the list I have provided above
2.       Existing Supplier – Please state the supplier for each contract
3.       Annual Spend- Please can you provide me with the spend for each individual supplier
4.       Contract Duration- please note if there are any extensions period available and if so what?
5.       Contract Start
6.       Contract Expiry
7.       Contract Review
8.       Contract Description- a small description of the type of services included within each contract.
9.       Number of sites covered for each contract e.g. the organisation may have a maintenance agreement with a supplier that covers several sites/buildings.
10.   Can you also send me the contact details of the person within the Organisation that is responsible for each one of these contract you have submitted.

We have made enquiries within the force and have attached document that contains all of the information requested that we have been able to retrieve

Reference: 9189 - 17
Date: 05/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 4th December 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 5th December 2017.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

1. How many reports have you received of imposters or fraudsters posing as police officers or staff since November 2012?
a) There have been no recorded crimes, within the timescale of your request, for impersonation of/impersonating a police officer however in 2012 there was an offence recorded as impersonation of/impersonating a police officer but it was amended to ‘Having a blade or pointed article in a public place’,

2. How many reports resulted in a charge and how many in a conviction
a) We have provided the number of persons arrested and charged for this offence in the attached document however conviction data is held by HM Courts and will need to be requested from them.
 
3. How many reports involved an element of digital fraud?
a) None

Reference: 9188 - 17
Date: 10/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 4th December received in this office on 5th December.  Apologies for the late response due to staffing issues. I note you seek the following information:

How much has it costs your force to police far-right demonstrations and protest by organisations such as Britain First and EDL since January 2010?
 
Please break the information down year-by-year.
 
If it can be achieved within the cost/time limit please break the costs for example how many police attended the events

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve, the numbers of Police officers in attendance are approximated.

10/11 – Nothing Listed

11/12 - £36,543 incurred on the following;
09/07/11 – EDL Middlesbrough - 271
14/05/11 – EDL Middlesbrough – 90

12/13 – Nothing Listed

 13/14 - £5,313 incurred on the following;

30/11/13 – NEI Demonstration – 219
 TCC Demo at sentencing - 13.02.2014 - 70

14/15 - £73,195 incurred on the following;
28/06/14 – EDL Middlesbrough – 434

15/16 - £20,421 incurred on the following;
04/07/15 – NEI Stockton - 164
24/10/15 – Boosbeck against Halal Slaughterhouses (NEI Association) - 38
16/01/16 – Middlesbrough Says No to Refugees (EDL/NEI Association) 145

16/17 - £9,181 incurred on the following;
16/07/16 – NEI Middlesbrough - 76

 17/18 – Nothing listed to date.

Reference: 9187 - 17
Date: 05/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 30th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within the department that has led to a large backlog of requests.  Below are the questions raised in your request, and the subsequent amendment made by you on 7th December 2017.
This information request relates to “sex for rent” arrangements. I.e. where a “landlord” offers free accommodation, to an individual, on the proviso that that individual carries out acts of a sexual nature on the landlord in return for the accommodation.
In July this year the Justice Secretary indicated that sex for rent arrangements are illegal under existing sexual offences legislation. He said that sections 52 and 54 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 meant that sex for rent arrangements are illegal because “an offence is committed when a person offers accommodation in return for sex, as they are inciting/causing another person to have sex with them in return for 'payment'."

In light of the above please could you provide the following information in relation to the last 5 years (i.e. from January 1st 2013 up until the date of this request):
1. Have you ever carried out any investigations where a “sex for rent” arrangement was a component part of the investigation?
a) We have made enquiries within the force and have been advised that there have been none within the timescale of your request.

2. Have you ever arrested any individual for advertising and/or entering into a “sex for rent” arrangement?
3. Have you ever charged any individual for advertising and/or entering into a “sex for rent” arrangement?
4. Have there been any successful prosecutions (i.e. found guilty) of any individual for advertising and/or entering into a “sex for rent” arrangement?
5. In relation to 1-4 above, have you ever communicated with the website Craigslist as part of your enquiries? If so, please provide copies of those communications. If you cannot provide a copy of the communications, please provide summaries.
6. In relation to 1-4 above, please provide details of the offence that was being investigated. Please provide summaries of the investigation in each case.
7. Please let me know the total number of charges that you have brought pursuant to s52 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (regardless of whether they related to “sex for rent” arrangements).
8. In relation to question 7 above, please let me know how many (if any) of those cases related, in any way, to an individual advertising and/or entering into a “sex for rent” arrangement?
 
Please present the information in whole years (and a partial year in respect of 2017).
a) Following the answer to question 1 we must advise that in relation to questions 2 – 8 our response must be no information held.

Reference: 9185 - 17
Date: 09/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 4th December 2017.  I note you seek the following information:

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I'm requesting the following information to be sent to me in an email:
Copies of any correspondence between your force & the National Trust between 01/01/2017 - 21/10/2017 that advised on their trail hunting policy, which is outlined here https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/our-position-on-trail-hunting

Having made enquiries within the Force the answer is no information is held.

Reference: 9183 - 17
Date: 02/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 1st December.  I note you seek the following information:

1.         How many racism complaints against Cleveland Police officers or staff (this includes both complaints from members of the public and other Cleveland Police staff - please state the number of complaints made by each) were recorded in each of the following calendar years: 2015, 2016, and 2017 so far?
2.         How many of the above racism complaints against Cleveland Police officers or staff resulted in a case to answer outcome (or equivalent) in each of the following calendar years: 2015, 2016, and 2017 so far?
3.         Please make a random selection of 25 racism complaints from the entire time period marked as 'no case to answer' or equivalent, then provide a summary of each allegation of racism from the selected complaints. If fewer than 25 complaints were marked 'no case to answer' or equivalent, then please provide details of every case.
4.         In each of the years listed above, how many Cleveland Police officers or staff resigned or were sacked following a racism complaint? Please state each employee's rank (or role).

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9181 -17
Date: 02/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received on 1st December.  I note you seek the following information:

The dates and times of incidents involving fireworks between 00.01 January 1st 2016 to 00.00 December 31st 2016.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve this is all incidents with “Firework(s)” in the text these will include general advice on them, thefts or that we have received reports of them going off.


 

Reference: 9180 - 17
Date: 02/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 30th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Since controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship became a criminal offence under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 on the 29th December 2015, to date:

1) How many alleged incidents of controlling/coercive behaviour have been reported to the police concerning alleged victims aged 16 or 17?
2) How have these alleged incidents been disposed of, i.e. charged, dismissed etc? I would like a breakdown for each incident.
I would like clarification for each question on whether the alleged incident took place in an intimate relationship or in a family relationship, and whether the victim was female or male.
a) We have made enquiries within the force and can advise you that within the timescale of your request there has been one such recorded incident.  The victim was no longer in a relationship with the other party and did not feel that they were a victim and subsequently withdrew their support.

Reference: 9179 - 17
Date: 09/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 30th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within this office, which has led to a substantial backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated.  I note you seek access to the below information.

Please provide the following information in relation to Police owned/registered vehicles (Police vehicles) engaged in routine duties (e.g. non-emergency duties).
1. The number of times Police vehicles have been captured exceeding the speed limit by mobile or fixed-position speed cameras. Please provide this as an annual breakdown from 2010 to the present date.
2. The number of times the drivers of those Police vehicles captured exceeding the speed limit were issued with a fixed penalty notice or summoned to attend court. Please provide this as an annual breakdown from 2010 to the present date.
3. The number of times the drivers of those Police vehicles captured exceeding the speed limit were subject to no further action. Please provide this as an annual breakdown from 2010 to the present date.
We can only provide details of the Cleveland Police vehicles captured exceeding the speed limit by mobile speed cameras. We have therefore classed police vehicles as anything registered to the Chief Constable which includes unmarked cars. We do not prosecute police vehicles where blue lights are activated.  The below list provides answers to question 1 - 3
The no of police vehicles captured
2010 – 18 
2011 – 15 
2012 – 19 
2013 – 4 
2014 – 3 
2015 – 15
2016 – 11 
2017 – 11
Course attended
2010 – 6 
2011 – 11 
2012 – 11 
2013 – 1 
2014 – 3 
2015 – 6
2016 – 6 
2017 – 5
Fixed penalty
2010 – 7 
2011 – 3 
2012 – 4 
2013 – 3 
2014 – 0 
2015 – 6
2016 – 1 
2017 – 2
Prosecution
2010 – 0 
2011 – 0 
2012 – 0 
2013 – 0 
2014 – 0 
2015 – 1
2016 – 0 
2017 – 1
Withdrawn
2010 – 5 
2011 – 1 
2012 – 4 
2013 – 0 
2014 – 0 
2015 – 2
2016 – 4 
2017 – 1
There are two from 2017 that are still outstanding.

In relation to question 4 and 5 we can only provide information from April 2013 which is when Cleveland Police started to use Pentip.


4. In relation to the drivers of Police vehicles captured exceeding the speed limit, where a fixed penalty notice or summons was issued (e.g. those disclosed in response to point 2 above): The maximum speed of a Police vehicle at the time it was captured exceeding the speed limit, along with the speed limit in force at that time and location.
2013 – The maximum speed of a police vehicle at the time it was captured exceeding the speed limit – 45mph in a 30mph limit zone, location Acklam Road, Middlesbrough
2014 – all 3 attended a speed awareness
2015 – 50mph in a 30mph limit, location Mill Lane, Billingham
2016 – 37mph in a 30mph limit, location A1027 Bishopton Avenue, Stockton
2017 – 39mph in a 30mph limit, location Trenchard Avenue, Thornaby.
5. In relation to the drivers of Police vehicles captured exceeding the speed limit, where no further action was taken (e.g. those disclosed in response to point 3 above): The maximum speed of a Police vehicle at the time it was captured exceeding the speed limit, along with the speed limit in force at that time and location.
2015 – 61mph in a 30mph limit, location West View Road, Hartlepool
2016 – 57mph in a 30mph limit, location New Road, Billingham
2017 – 38mph in a 30mph limit, location The Spital, Yarm.
In accordance with section 11 of the Act, please provide your response in electronic format to the return email address associated with this request

 


 

Reference: 9176 - 17
Date: 02/01/2018

I write in connection with your request dated 29th November 2017.  I note you seek the following information:

Please can you tell me how many children at the age of 10 or below the age of criminal responsibility were linked to crimes (as suspects/offenders) recorded in your police area, disclosing the offence, from January 2012 to 31 Oct 2017.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference:
Date: 02/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 28th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 29th November 2017.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

Please can I request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act:

Please tell me for each of the following financial years a) 2012/13 b) 2013/14 c) 2014/15 d) 2015/16 e) 2016/17 how many children (under 18) were arrested for:
a) supply of controlled drugs - class A
b) supply of controlled drugs - class B
c) supply of controlled drugs - class C
d) possession of controlled drugs (class A) with intent to supply
e) possession of controlled drugs (class B) with intent to supply
f) possession of controlled drugs (class C) with intent to supply.

For each arrest, please tell me a) the suspect's age b) the suspect's gender

We have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to locate/retrieve to answer your request.

Reference: 9174 -17
Date: 22/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 28th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within this office resulting in a considerable backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated. I note you seek access to the following information:

BURGLARY
1. What is the total number of recorded burglaries and aggravated burglaries according to Section 9 and 10 of the Theft Act.
A) between 1/12/16 - 30/11/17
B) between 1/12/15 - 30/11/16

Burglaries/agg burglaries Dec 16 to end Nov 17 - 3661
Burglaries/agg burglaries Dec 15 to end Nov 16 - 3248

2. Number of cases where a charge was brought against a suspect according to the above.
A) between 1/12/16 - 30/11/17 
B) between 1/12/15 - 30/11/16

Of which charge/summons Dec 16 to end Nov 17 - 272
Of which charge/summons Dec 15 to end Nov 16 - 317

If you have this as a percentage and can provide within the cost limitations, please provide this.
3. Number of times that a car was recorded stolen during a burglary or aggravated burglary
A) between 1/12/16 - 30/11/17
B) between 1/12/15 - 30/11/16

Car stolen during burglary Dec 16 to end Nov 17 (using HANOI keyword) - 65
Car stolen during burglary Dec 15 to end Nov 16 (using HANOI keyword) - 107

4. Number of people under the age of 18 charged with the offence of burglary or aggravated burglary
A) between 1/12/16 - 30/11/17
B) between 1/12/15 - 30/11/16
If you have this as a percentage, please provide this. (i.e: X% of individuals charged with the offence of burglary or aggravated burglary, were aged under 18)

People under 18 charged with burg/agg burg Dec 16 to end Nov 17 - 286
People under 18 charged with burg/agg burg Dec 15 to end Nov 16 - 322

THEFT WITH MURDER
5. If you can provide this within the cost limitations I would like to know the number of cases where a murder or manslaughter took place during a burglary or aggravated burglary between 1/12/16-30/11/17 EXCLUDING cases where the perpetrator was killed (i.e: the home owner shoots the thief)
CAR THEFT

None

6. How many cars were recorded stolen:
A) between 1/12/16 - 30/11/17
B) between 1/12/15 - 30/11/16

Theft of cars only (excluding agg) Dec 16 to end Nov 17 - 474
Theft of cars only (excluding agg) Dec 15 to end Nov 16 – 422

7. If possible within the cost limit, please identify how many keyless car thefts were recorded.
A) between 1/12/16 - 30/11/17
B) between 1/12/15 - 30/11/16
If possible within the cost limit, please identify how many keyless car thefts were recorded which likely involved the use of sophisticated technology to unlock and start the car. We understand that if that car was not recovered you cannot definitively understand the means by which it was taken.
A) between 1/12/16 - 30/11/17
B) between 1/12/15 - 30/11/16

Do not record keyless car thefts

8. How many of the cars recorded stolen between 1/12/16 - 30/11/17 were recovered?

Do not record data in relation to recoveries.

9. The number of reports of aggravated vehicle taking, according to Section 12A of the Theft Act:
A) between 1/12/16 - 30/11/17
B) between 1/12/15 - 30/11/16

Number of crimes of aggravated vehicle taking Dec 16 to end Nov 17 - 92
Number of crimes of aggravated vehicle taking Dec 15 to end Nov 16 - 98

10. If possible within the cost limit, please identify how many of these relate specifically to cars.
A) between 1/12/16 - 30/11/17
B) between 1/12/15 - 30/11/16

Of question 9, car only Dec 16 to end Nov 17 - 80
Of question 9, car only Dec 15 to end Nov 16 – 78

STOLEN GOODS
11. Number of recorded offences of handling stolen goods as according to Section 22 of the theft act between 1/12/16- 30/11/17

Recorded handling stolen goods offences Dec 16 to end Nov 17 - 43
Recorded handling stolen goods offences Dec 15 to end Nov 16 - 59

12. The estimated total value of items stolen in burglaries and aggravated burglaries recorded.
A) between 1/12/16 - 30/11/17
B) between 1/12/15 - 30/11/16

Do not hold this information

Reference: 9173-17
Date: 29/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 28th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  In your e-mail you state that you did not receive an acknowledgement but our records show that one was sent to you on 29th November indicating that it would be our aim to respond by 29th December 2017.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you:

1) How many crimes have your force recorded under the Modern Slavery Act since it came into force in April 2015? Please break this down by financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17. I would also be grateful if you could include figures to date (an incomplete year 2017-18) for April, May, June, July, August, September, October and November broken down by month.
a) see attached document
2) How many of the crimes that your force has recorded under the act have resulted in a Charge/ Summons being brought? Please break this down by financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17. I would also be grateful if you could include figures to date (an incomplete year 2017-18) for April, May, June, July, August, September, October and November broken down by month.
a)  1 charged/summonsed in Aug 2015

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information that was available at the date of your request.

Reference: 9172 - 17
Date: 09/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 27th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 21st November 2017.  Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within this office, which has led to a substantial backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated.  I note you seek access to the below information.

Please provide information regarding how many times Cleveland Police have been asked to attend for detained shoplifters and have failed to to do so resulting in the said shoplifters being released by the stores who have detained them due to such things as ‘No resource available’ in the 4 Police areas of Middlesbrough, Redcar, Stockton and Hartlepool and the locations in which they have been detained since the implementation of ‘Operation Raptor’
Following a request for a timescale you advised us on 6th December that you required information for period 1st June 2016 until 5th December 2017.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the Quality and Compliance Team regarding your request I have been advised that within the timescale of your request there were approximately 9,774 shoplifting incidents that contained the word ‘Raptor’ and when this is removed there are in excess of 18,000 such incidents. Each file would need to be manually retrieved and read so as to identify if they were pertinent to your request, i.e. that police had been asked to attend premises to deal with a detained shoplifter and they were unable due to no resources. It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.
We would suggest that you refine your request to a shorter time scale however for a two month period alone there were 543 shoplifting incidents that contained the word ‘Raptor’ and in excess of 1,000 shoplifting incidents for the whole of the force area and a request for a single district, for the timescale of your request, would still possibly exceed the time limit.

 

Reference: 9170-17
Date: 28/12/2017

I write in response you your request dated 27th November.  I note you seek the following information:

Cleveland Police's Stockton Neighbourhood Team has a Facebook account on which it posts news, some of which features Lego. I would like to know:

1. Has any public money been spent on this Lego and if so how much?
a)  No money has been spent on lego it belongs to an Officer’s child.

2. How much police time is spent on creating these Lego images per week?
a) 5 minutes at most.

3. Has any design software been purchased by the Force to support these posts? If so, how much did
it cost.
a) No therefore no cost to the Force.

Having made enquires within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9169-17
Date: 28/12/2017

I write in connection with your request received in this office on 26th November.  I note you seek the following information:

1. Please provide details of the annual increase in the theft of motorcycles, mopeds and scooters in your Force’s area for the last three years.

During the financial year 2014/15 there were 143 motorcycles, mopeds and scooters stolen.
During the financial year 2015/16, there were 188 stolen, an increase of 31% from the previous year.
During the financial year 2016/17 there were 255 stolen, an increase of 36% from the previous year.

 
2. What steps are the Force taking to reduce thefts, in particular where they have seen an increase?  Please provide details.

We have noticed an increase in all vehicle crime, particularly in the months August, September & October.  In response to this our Crime Prevention team have tailored a campaign to members of the public regarding this; this has included pop up shops in target areas and high footfall areas speaking directly to members of the public.  We created a number of posters which were given to all fuel filling stations in the county to be displayed and have been updating Facebook with further advice.  Our Architectural Liaison Officers work with new building developments to influence the security features for vehicle storage.  We also work with car park developments to attain the Safer Parking accolade.
 
3. Does your Force have a dedicated Motorcycle Crime Officer or other point of contact in respect to these issues? If so, please provide contact details.

No we do not have a dedicated Motorcycle crime officer but we do have  staff who deal with all vehicle crime [email protected]

Having made enquires within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve however there is also information available our website www.cleveland.police.uk.  If the website or crime prevention does not fulfil your requirements please submit a new request with all the other information you require.

 

Reference: 9167-17
Date: 28/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 26th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 27th November 2017.  I note you seek access to the below information.

For the past 5 years (2012-2016) & year to date (if you are able):

1 - The total number of arrests made in your force area.
2 - Of those arrests the number where detention was declined by a custody officer.
3 - The necessity (Code G / SOCAP / SOCPA) criteria recorded for those declined arrests (as a total).
e.g. There were 1,000 arrests:
- 764 were to allow for a prompt & effective investigation
- 23 were to allow for the Name to be ascertained etc
4 - The necessity (Code G / SOCAP / SOCPA) criteria recorded for the arrests where detention was authorised (as a total).
e.g. There were 1,000 arrests:
- 764 were to allow for a prompt & effective investigation
- 23 were to allow for the Name to be ascertained etc
5 - Where possible a list of the reasons why the arrest was declined (It may be a free text or drop-down field that you can generate automatically).

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the Custody Department regarding your request we have been advised that in relation to questions 3, 4 and 5 the subject (declined arrest) is not searchable on the custody system, the necessity, reason or grounds for detention not authorised is recorded on the log by the custody Sgt and could be different in every case and to provide and answer would require that every declined arrest custody record be opened to recover the custody Sgts comments/rationale. There are approximately 1337 such records that would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.
However if you submit a revised request, question 1 and 2 only we will endeavour to provide you with the information requested.


 

Reference: 9164 -17
Date: 02/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 24th November   which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Could you tell me how much it costs Cleveland Police to police football matches inside the grounds and outside of the grounds. Also how much of this cost are Cleveland Police able to reclaim?
For the Premier league clubs the last three years.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having made enquiries within the relevant department, they have advised that they can only identify the overtime costs in relation to policing the football matches and the costs recharged to the football club.  There will be a significant number of officers who will have been on their normal tour of duty and have worked on the football matches for all or part of this which would contribute to the total cost.  The only way to extract this information is by way of a lengthy manual process, also to identify the split of costs for inside and outside of the ground would again involve a manual process and it is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
However as a gesture of goodwill, outside of the Freedom of information Act, we can supply the information, relating to the income from the recharge costs, for officers policing the home games of  Middlesbrough Football Club.  Middlesbrough Football Club has only been in the Premier League for the 2016/17 Season and the income received from the club for that period was £161,709
I hope that this is of help to you and note that it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

 

Reference: 9162-17
Date: 21/12/2017

I write in connection with request for information dated 22nd November and received in this office on 23rd November.  I note you seek the following information:

The number of times police began an investigation into alleged money laundering involving activity at a betting shop in calendar years: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 (Jan 1 - Oct 31).

This information will be held by Action Fraud.

Secondly,
How many instances of assault or violence (including criminal damage) on a betting premises were recorded by the Cleveland Police in the calendar years: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 (Jan 1 - Oct 31).

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve with regards to the above crimes recorded in a betting office the Department providing this data holds this financial years.

2012/13 – 14
Common assault – 2
Criminal damage - 8
Assault – 4

2013/14 – 10
Criminal damage – 10

2014/15 – 11
Criminal Damage – 8
Assaults – 2
GBH - 1

2015/16 – 27
Criminal Damage – 21
Assault – 4
Common Assault - 2

2016/17 – 18
Criminal Damage – 15
Assault – 3

2017 to end of Oct – 13
Criminal Damage – 9
Assault – 1
Common Assault - 3

 

Reference: 9159-17
Date: 21/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 22nd November.  I note you are seeking the following information:


1. How many PCSOs are currently employed by your force (please provide the latest figures available)?

Data as of 31st October 2017 Headcount 146, FTE 142.9729

2. Does your force have any plans to cut the number of PCSOs in the coming year?

No

3. How many PCSOs have left your force in each of the last three financial years (2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17)? If available, please could your provide a breakdown of the reason for leaving (e.g. voluntary resignation, normal retirement, dismissal)?

2014/15
Dismissed 2
Medical Grounds 1
Resignation 9
Voluntary Redundancy 6
2015/16
Dismissed 1
Resignation 12
2016/17
Dismissed 1
Resignation 14

4. What was the total budget for PCSOs in your force in each of the last three financial years (2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17)?

14/15 - £4,419K
15/16 - £3,770K
16/17 - £4,077K

5. How many arrests were made in total by PCSOs in each of the last three financial years (2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17)? If possible within costs limits, could you provide this information broken down by the specific type of offence?

None,  PCSO’s do not have a power of arrest and in our force don’t even have authority from the Chief to detain.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9158-17
Date: 21/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 22nd November received in this office on 23rd November.  I note you seek the following information:

1) How many “sexual offences” crimes (defined under the Sexual Offences Act 2003) were reported to your force each month over the last 5 years? Please give a monthly breakdown of the number of reported crimes of this type, per month, from December 2012-November 2017 (to date)

2) How many crimes of “harassment” (defined under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) were reported to your force each month over the last 5 years? Please give a monthly breakdown of the number of reported crimes of this type, per month, from December 2012-November 2017 (to date)

And if within time/budget:

Please identify within answer 1) the number of reported rapes per month over the 5 year period, and the number of reported sexual assaults per month over the 5 year period.
 
Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve please note theses are reported crimes as requested not recorded crimes.

Reference: 9155-17
Date: 20/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 21st November which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

I would like to know the details of all the people reported missing in the Teesside area since 1997.
To include: full names, ages, address, where they were last seen and where the investigations stand today.

Also, any photographs of those mentioned.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that we deal with around 5000 missing people a year so that would be 100000 reports.  With regard to Teesside area, this may include towns outside of Cleveland which we do not hold information on.  Therefore 100000 files that would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.

Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.

Reference: 9154-17
Date: 20/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 20th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 21st November 2017.   Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

I am requesting information about the amount of paedophiles living in and around Redcar.
 
a)  Having made enquiries within the Force we cannot provide how many paedophiles live in and around Redcar but we can tell you that on the date of your request there were 50 Child Sex Offenders living in the Redcar area.

 

Reference: 9153 - 17
Date: 20/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 20th November received in this office on 22nd November.  I note you seek the following information:

Has the police force given any new guidance to its officers about the priorities of dealing with ‘low level’ crime eg burglaries, low level drug dealing (for example a crime assessment policy) etc in the past 12 months?
 
If you have, would you please enclose a copy of this new guidance?

Having made enquiries within the Force the answer is none

Reference: 9152 - 17
Date: 19/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 20th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

I am currently writing a story about homophobic attacks and assaults in the North East and I am writing to ask and hope if you can provide me with information such as if there has been a rise in reports of homophobic incidents since 2016 to present day and if you could provide a comment on how the attacks are being handled and why you think there has been a rise.

As stated in our correspondence sent to you on 20th November Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 it gives individuals the right to information held, therefore with regards to your request we have provided number of homophobic incidents in 2016/17 and 2017/18 up to 31st October.    If you require any comments in regards to data supplied you must contact Cleveland Police Corporate Communications Department. 

2016/17
76
2017/18 to 31st October 2017
49

 

Reference: 9151 - 17
Date: 19/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information 20th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information that we have been able to obtain/retrieve for you. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act; I request the following information.
It is well documented that the number of police stations open to the public has declined rapidly nationwide in recent years, this often as citied due to lack of use by the public; my request is thus; 1. Has a footfall survey or usage count of Public Enquiry Offices ever been conducted.
2. If so, could I access the information complied.
We have made enquiries with our Business Transformation Unit and have been advised that this is something that is regularly monitored and reported on via Partnership Performance review meetings held with our business partner, Sopra Steria, who are responsible for Front Enquiry Desk staff.
In the absence of a timescale for your request we have provided the figures from 1st April 2017 to 31st October 2017 as Novembers figure were not complete at the time of your request.
April 2017
Middlesbrough - 2077
Stockton – 901,
Hartlepool – 803
Redcar – 481 
May 2017
Middlesbrough - 2332
Stockton – 1185
Hartlepool – 818
Redcar – 572 
June 2017
Middlesbrough - 2016
Stockton – 1211
Hartlepool – 854
Redcar – 557 
July 2017
Middlesbrough - 1949
Stockton – 1301
Hartlepool – 753
Redcar – 610 
August 2017
Middlesbrough - 1975
Stockton – 1181
Hartlepool – 726
Redcar – 502 
September 2017
Middlesbrough - 2128
Stockton – 1131
Hartlepool – 768
Redcar – 443 
October 2017
Middlesbrough - 1754
Stockton – 1028
Hartlepool – 718
Redcar – 814 

Should you require additional information a new request should be submitted with a timescale for information stated.

 

Reference: 9150 - 17
Date: 19/12/2017

I write in connection with your request received in this office on 19th November.  I note you seek the following information:

1)    Overall number of police officers
Overall numbers of police officers headcount 1298 fte 1272.063

2)    Overall number of police officers working a 24/7 shift pattern

3)    Overall number of police staff
Overall number of police staff headcount 460 fte 426.088

4)    Overall number of police staff working a 24/7 shift pattern

5)    Current 24/7 emergency response shift patterns (so those whose main role is to be available 24/7 to respond to incidents, rather than, for example, neighbourhood policing).  If the pattern follows a 5 or 10-week rotation, it would be useful if the whole pattern could be provided in order to allow a national comparison.

6)     Number of police involved road traffic collisions, by year, 2010-2016, including; Date, time, duty shift, on duty or travelling to/from duty, classification and nature of injury (to both police officers/staff and anyone else involved), causation factor, location and classification of road, culpability (police or other) and any prosecution outcome.
We do not record this information.

For question 2, 4 and 5 we would rely on:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that the department would have to manually look through each pattern team by team and this is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
 
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  However as a gesture of goodwill outside of the act we have provided all the information we have been able to retrieve before it was ascertained that part of the request would take over the allotted time for Freedom of information requests.
 

Reference: 9149 - 17
Date: 19/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 20th November.  I note you seek the following information:

- The number of violent incidents at sporting events
- The number of people involved in violence at sporting events
- The number of arrests made at sporting events due to violence
- Which sports the violent incidents occurred in.
 
Regarding the number of people involved in violence at sporting events, I would like to know of all persons linked to an offence, regardless of action taken.
 
All offences classified as ‘violent’ or ‘violence’ against the person include violence with and without injury.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that they cannot search for “sporting events” and for 2016-17 there where over 12,000 violence with and without injury crimes that would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.

Reference:
Date: 19/12/2017

I write in connection with your request received in this office on 17th November.   I note you seek the following information:

Between 15th June 2016 and 15th June 2017, how many incidents have been recorded in your police
authority area for committing an offence under 'section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988: Public showing or playing of broadcasts'.

The Home Office Code is 84/10 for the act of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Having made enquiries within the relevant department for the time period stated there have been no recorded crimes of HO class 84/10.

Reference: 9146 - 17
Date: 18/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 17th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

The number of homophobic attacks for every year in the past 10 years
a) We have made enquiries within the force and must advise you that we can only provide information from the financial year commencing 1st April 2010 which is when the Sexual Orientation Qualifiers were used from.
2010/11
26
2011/12
19
2012/13
9
2013/14
18
2014/15
26
2015/16
48
2016/17
76
2017/18 to 31st October 2017
49

The number of murders related to homophobia for every year in the past 10 years
a) None

 

Reference: 9145 -17
Date: 21/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 17th November which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Apologies for the late response due to staffing issues.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Does you force outsource Imagery Analysis / Enhancement services? Such as facial mapping etc.
a) The Force uses Acume.

Can you provide the spend attributed to outsourced Imagery Services for FY16/17.
a)  The cost of the services provided by Acume for the Financial Year 2016/17 totalled £14,525.70.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9144 - 17
Date: 18/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 17th November which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

This request concerns the current number of vacancies at inspecting rank in your force.

1) Please state the current number of establishment full time
a) inspector  - 59
b) chief inspector - 18
positions in your force as of 13/10/17, or at the nearest possible data collection date to this day.

2) Please state the current number of establishment full time
a) inspector  - 60.8
b) chief inspector - 20.8
positions currently filled in you force as of 13/10/17, or at the nearest possible data collection date to this day.

3) Please state the current number of establishment full time
a) inspector - 1.8 (inc. temporary)
b) chief inspector - 2.8 (inc. temporary)
positions currently unfilled in your force as of 13/10/17, or at the nearest possible data collection date to this day.

Having made enquiries with Human Resources Department above is all the information they have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9142 -17
Date: 15/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 16th November.  I note you seek the following information:

1)   The number of hit-and-run incidents recorded by the force between January 1st, 2012 and the date of this request;
a) Of those, how many were fatal;

2) How many incidents resulted in drivers being charged, and how many resulted in a fine/penalty;
The ages of individuals charged with a hit-and-run in the same period.

Hit-and-run refers to drivers failing to stop after being involved in a collision.

Having made enquiries within the Force in Cleveland police force area between January 2012 and October 2017 there have been 445 reported injury collisions where at least one vehicle involved failed to stop at the scene. Of these collisions, 2 involved a fatality.  Above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

For question 2 we would rely on:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that hit and run could fall under RTC Injury/Death/Damage incidents or Other Road related incidents and for 2016 there were 7440 incidents alone for RTC Injury/Death/Damage incidents and these would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.

Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.
 

 

Reference: 9140 - 17
Date: 15/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th November which was received by Cleveland Police on 16th November 2017.  I note you seek access to the following information:

I am writing to you in the hopes of trying to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
How many drivers for the years 2017, 2016, and 2015 have been given a roadside / on-the-spot fine or penalty for having incorrect insurance cover for the journey purpose. Specifically, those drivers who were found to be driving for work purposes that did not have either class 1, class 2 or class 3 insurance to cover business use?
a) We have made enquires with our Central Ticket Office and they have advised us that the reason for ‘No Insurance’ is not recorded so my answer to your request must be no information held.

Reference: 9139 -17
Date: 15/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th November which was received in this office on 16th November.  I note you seek the following information:

I would like to know the following information under the Freedom of Information Act for every annual year from 2012 to date in 2017:

1)  How many Vietnamese children (under 18) were arrested by your force? - 22


2) How many of these arrested Vietnamese children were identified as potential victims of trafficking by your force and then referred to the National Referral Mechanism?
 
3) What were these Vietnamese children arrested for? (Please provide as much detail as possible, at the very least, please would you summarise the nature of the crime in a couple of words. For example: “drugs-related offences”)

2012-13         
Drug possession -1
Drug trafficking - 1
Warrant - 1
Immigration - 1
 
2013-14  
Drug trafficking - 2
Immigration - 2
 
2014-15  
Drug trafficking - 2
 
2015-16  
Trafficking of Drugs - 2
Possession/use of drugs - 2
Immigration - 3
 
2016-17  
Drug Trafficking  - 1
Violence without Injury - 1
 
2017- October 17 
Drug Trafficking - 3

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

For question 2 we would rely on:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Sec1 (1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec1 (1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information with regard to an exempt body as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following exemption:

Section 23 Information Supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.
Section 23 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in this case. 
Confirming or denying the existence of whether any other information is held would contravene the constrictions laid out within Section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in that this stipulates a generic bar on disclosure of any information applied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.

 

Reference: 9138 - 17
Date: 13/12/2017

I write in connection with you request for information dated 15th November.  I note you seek the follow information:

1. Please provide the number of reports of criminal damage to motor vehicles broken down by year (2015, 2016, 2017 year-to-date)

2. Please provide the number of investigations carried out following a reports criminal damage to motor vehicles broken down by year (2015, 2016, 2017 year-to-date) with details on the outcome if possible

3. Please provide either the total value or an approximation of the total value of damage to motor vehicles because of criminal damage broken down by year (2015, 2016, 2017 year-to-date)

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document from the analyst who has given all the information for 58C Criminal damage to a vehicle with the most up to date outcomes this is all the information we have been able to retrieve.   We do not record number of investigations and please note we are unable to complete question 3 as the value is rarely specified.

Reference: 9137 - 17
Date: 13/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th November which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Can you please tell me how much the force has spent on decorating patrol cars with gay pride symbols and/or flags.
Please tell me:
1. How many cars were decorated;
2. The total cost of decorating each car;
3. When they were decorated and why (i.e. upcoming Gay Pride festival)
Please provide the information in yearly breakdowns for the last four years, 2014, 2015 2016 and 2017 up to the date this request was received.

Having made enquiries within the Force the answer to your request is none.

Reference: 9136 - 17
Date: 14/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th November 2017 which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been provided with to answer your request.
 
I would like to know the number of penalty notices handed to drivers for speeding, in the Cleveland force area, in 2017 up to today's date (Nov 15). I would like the same total number for 2016.
We have made enquiries within the force and below are the number of penalty tickets issued in the timescale requested
2016 – 13602
2017 – 9648 to the date of your request.

And is it possible to provide me with a list of the 20 roads/areas where the most speeding fines were handed out in 2017 please?
Following enquiries within the force the below list details the 20 sites that have captured the most speeding offences in no particular order.
B1380 Eston
Easington Road (A1086 Coast Road), Hartlepool
Trenchard Avenue, Thornaby
A67 Thirsk Road, Yarm
A171 Cargo Fleet Lane, Middlesbrough
West View Road, Hartlepool
Queen Elizabeth Way, Stockton
Sotherby Road/Queen’s Way, Middlesbrough
The Spital, Yarm
Darlington Road, Stockton
A67 Urlay Nook
Newham Way, Middlesbrough
Mitchell Avenue, Thornaby
University Boulevard, Stockton-on-Tees
Redcar Road, Redcar
Cowpen Lane, Billingham
Church Lane, Eston
Marske Lane, Skelton
A1027 Bishopton Avenue, Stockton
A171 Ormesby Bank, Ormesby

Reference: 9135 - 17
Date: 13/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

I want to request data using the Freedom of Information Act. How many 999 and 101 calls did Cleveland Police receive on Black-eyed Friday 2016, which took place on 23rd December? With regards to the 101 call, how many of these calls led to incidents being logged?
Is there a figure for the average number of calls received on a Friday night in 2016 and/or 2017 so far?
We have made enquiries with our Quality & Compliance team and can advise you that

The number of calls received on Friday 23rd December 2016 (midnight to midnight) totalled 858 calls (999 and 101 calls)
For the actual night shift of Friday into Saturday (23rd December 2016) – 19.00x07.00hrs the figure was 395 calls (999 and 101 calls)
Figures for other Friday nights during December 2016 averaged at 380 calls (999 and 101 calls)
Figures for other Friday nights during November 2017 averaged at 309 (999 and 101 calls)
We cannot provide data on the number of 101 calls were converted into an incident, but we can advise you that there were;
A total of 586 incidents created midnight to midnight 23rd December 2016 and a total of 289 incidents created for the night shift 19:00 23rd December to 07:00 24th December 2016 for all call types.

Reference: 9134 - 17
Date: 13/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th November which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

All instances where acid attacks were reported over the past five years, including arrests made, convictions, and sentencing.

2013 – 1 - Arrests 1
2014 – 4 – Arrests 2
2015 – 7 – Arrests 5
2016 - 4 – Arrests 3
2017 – 5 - Arrests 3

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.
Conviction data is held by HM Courts therefore no information is held by Cleveland Police.

Reference: 9132 - 17
Date: 13/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 14th November which was received by Cleveland Police on 15th November 2017.  I note you seek access to the following information:

1) I would like to know how many under 18 males attacked their parent or guardian between 2012 - present?
2) I would like to know how many under 18 females attacked their parent or guardian between 2012 - present?
3) What was the outcome?
If possible I would also like to know the age of the attacker and the age of the victim.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request we have been advised that we would be unable to answer this request with any degree of accuracy as the relationship field is notoriously unreliable.  In the 2016/17 year alone there were 12881 recorded crimes of violence and in order for us to provide any data regarding relationship between victim and perpetrator and the gender of the perpetrator we would have to manually retrieve and read every violence report to ascertain if information pertinent to this request is recorded. It is estimated that to try and provide the information after taking into account the time already spent would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Reference: 9131 -17
Date: 13/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 14th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

On what single day from 14 /12/16 to 6 /1/17 were most burglaries reported and recorded. How many in both categories.
In relation to the most burglaries reported within the timescale of your request;
There were 13 crimes of burglary recorded on 15th December 2016 and 19th December 2016
And
In relation to the most burglaries recorded within the timescale of your request;
There were 15 crimes of burglary validated on 20th December 2016 and 26th December 2016.

Please note these figures include burglary dwelling, attempt burglary dwelling, distraction burglary dwelling and aggravated burglary in a dwelling.

Reference: 9130 - 17
Date: 13/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 14th November which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, could you please answer the following request:
How many homeless people have died within the force area since 2012?

How many homeless people have been attacked within the force area since 2012?

How many homeless people have been killed within the force area since 2012?

How many homeless people were left disabled as a result an attack within the force area since 2012?

How many homeless people suffered long-term health conditions as a result of an attack within the force area since 2012?

How many homeless people under the age of 25 have been attacked within the force area since 2012?

How many homeless people under the age of 25 have been killed within the force area since 2012?

How many homeless people over the age of 65 have been attacked within the force area since 2012?

How many homeless people over the age of 65 have been killed within the force area since 2012?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request we have been advised that in the 2016/17 financial year there were 12881 recorded crimes of violence, in order for us to provide any data in relation to whether the victim of violence or death, including murder, was a homeless person we would need to read every report to ascertain if that information is recorded.  It is estimated that to try and provide the information after taking into account the time already spent would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Reference: 9128 -17
Date: 18/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 14th November.  Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within this office resulting in a considerable backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated. I note you seek access to the following information:
1.            Have you a system in place to monitor the number of transgender officers that work for your force? If so when was the system first put in place to record the numbers of transgender officers?
a)  2013
2.            If you do have such a system how many transgender officers do you have working for your force?
a) 0

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

 

Reference: 9127 - 17
Date: 12/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 13th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 14th November 2017.  I note you seek access to the information detailed below. 

Under the FOI Act I am requesting information regarding how many officers from Cleveland Police have been allowed to retire in the last three years whilst an investigation involving the retiring officer is on-going.
a) Having made enquiries with our Directorate of Standards & Ethics we have been advised that since 1st January 2015 data 4 officers have been identified as having retired or resigned whilst under investigation.

Reference: 9126 - 17
Date: 12/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on the 13th November.  I note you seek the following information:

1. Please could you provide the following information in respect of Hifza News, 5 Beaumont Road,
Middlesbrough, TS3 6NL:

i) Can you provide the dates of any inspections/enforcement visits or operations involving the
premises and carried out by Cleveland Police in the last 12 months?

One inspection has been carried out in the last 12 months.

ii) Can you confirm the purpose of the visit and provide a report sheet, or similar, which documented
the visit, detailing the council officer involved, purpose of the visit and the outcome;

The purpose of the visit was to check compliance with licence conditions.  This was conducted by PC 1841 and a member of staff from Middlesbrough Borough Council on 10/10/17 at 10.30 and age verifications posters were issued to be displayed, if you require the documentation and the council officer’s name please contact Middlesbrough Borough Council. 

iii) If there have been any test purchase operations at the premises, what were the results of that
operation? Pass/Fail?

There have been no underage Test purchase operations involving Cleveland Police.

2. Please provide copies of any letters sent to the premises or to Mr Hussain concerning ‘Hifza News’
in the last two years.

No information held.

Having made enquiries above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  I have included the address for the council if you require the above documentation.

Middlesbrough Borough Council
PO Box 500
Middlesbrough
TS1 9FT
Tel: 01642 245432

 

Reference: 9121 - 17
Date: 11/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 10th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the information detailed below.
 
Could you please furnish me with the statistical data with regards to any officer, regardless of rank who has any of the convictions outlined, those being:
Section 1 of the RTA 1988: Death by dangerous driving.
Section 2 of the RTA 1988: Dangerous driving.
Section 2B of the RTA 1988: Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.
Section 3 of the RTA 1988: Careless or inconsiderate driving.
whilst being in your employment and are still employed by yourselves during the past 6 years.
This data, I assume would be readily available and held by your professional standards unit, and as such this request should fall within the specified parameters.
 
a) We have made enquiries with our Directorate of Standards & Ethics Data in relation to your request and have been advised that within the timescale of your request they have not been able to trace any record of officers being convicted of the above offences, so our answer, on this occasion, is no information held.

Reference: 9120 - 17
Date: 11/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 10th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

In the time period of 1st November 2016 until 31st October 2017, how many times did your police force give out a fixed penalty notice to drivers who had a broken light on their vehicle?
a) Within the timescale specified in your request Cleveland Police issued 4 fixed penalty notices for drivers failing to maintain lamps
 
And
 
In the time period of 1st November 2016 until 31st October 2017, how many times did your police force give out a Roadside Prohibition Notice to drivers who had a broken light on their vehicle?
a) Within the timescale specified in your request Cleveland Police issued 100 VDRS (Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme) notices for the same offence allowing the person 14 days to provide evidence that the defect has been rectified to the Central Ticket Office.

Reference: 9119 -17
Date: 11/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 10th November 2017.  I note you seek the following information:

Can you please tell me the number of children under the age of 18 who have been investigated in the last two years by your force for “sexting” activities – that is sending or sharing explicit or naked pictures of themselves on social media or text messaging services to others. Please provide figures for the most recent 12-year periods available. Can you please separate the information so it is clear which is the most recent 12 months? Nov-Nov 2016-2017 and Nov-Nov 2015-2016.

1. The age of the child at the time of the offence and their gender
2. The outcome, ie. no further action, police caution, charged, ongoing
3. The medium used to send explicit content (for example: text message, Twitter, Facebook)
4. Whether the child who sent the material was added to the sex offenders’s register.
5. If possible please include the age of the recipient of the explicit material as well as the sender.

For questions 3, 4 and 5 we would rely on the following:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that there are 112 files that would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request this includes various data management systems and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.

Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.

However as a gesture of goodwill outside of the Act we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve before it was realised the time limit would be exceeded.  The analyst has only included crimes where there is a named suspect who is aged under 18 and the outcomes are a snap shot taken on the day the data was run. 

Reference: 9118 - 17
Date: 12/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 10th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Please accept our apologies for the delayed response caused by staffing issues within this office, which has led to a substantial backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated.  I note you seek access to the information detailed below. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act, please provide responses to the questions below:
1. How many test purchase operations involving Cleveland Police have taken place at off-licence premises in the Middleburgh area since April 2017? Where such operations took place, how many premises were tested in the same operational period? How many premises passed and how many failed?
a) There have been 3 premises subject to an underage alcohol test purchase in Middlesbrough since April 2017. All three passed without selling to the volunteers

2. How many off-licence premises in the Middleburgh area were visited by a joint operation involving HMRC, Trading Standards, the Police, and the Licensing Authority (or any combination of those authorities) on 15 June 2017, and what the results of such visits were (e.g. how many premises received no further action/how many were fined/how have had their licence reviewed under the Licensing Act 2003, etc.)?
a) On the 15th June 2017 Cleveland Police visited 12 premises with HMRC.

3. How many other similar joint operations to that referred to above in 2) have taken place in Middlesbrough since April 2017, and how many of them resulted in the premises licence review under the Licensing Act 2003? How many of such reviews related to the Alcohol Wholesale Registration Scheme introduced in April 2017?
a) There has been one operation conducted since April 2017 of the type described. The operation took place over a number of days. 36 premises were visited in total of which formal action has been taken against 6 premises. All 6 have been subject to a review under the Licensing Act. There have been no other reviews brought since April 2017 in connection with the Wholesaler registration scheme by Cleveland Police.

4. Please confirm whether and, if so, how many similar visits as the one referred to in questions 2) and 3) above have taken place since April 2017 at any of the major supermarket brands operating in the area?  Particularly, ASDA, Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsbury’s.
a) There have been no visits by Cleveland Police with HMRC of the type described in questions 2 and 3  to the major supermarket brands named (ASDA, Morrisons, Tesco or Sainsbury’s) since April 2017. Information regarding any other compliance checks outside of the joint exercise to those premises would need to be requested from HMRC.

Reference: 9117 - 17
Date: 11/02/2017

I write in connection with your request dated 9th November 2017 received in this officer on the 10th November.  I note you seek the following information:

1. Advice given by your force to the National Trust regarding the publication of trail hunting routes on the National Trust website.

2. Information on any meetings held with National Trust representatives in 2017, including minutes and notes of such meetings, in which any aspect of the publication of trail hunting routes and/or public safety in respect of trail hunting on National Trust land was discussed.

3. All correspondence between your force and the National Trust in 2017, in which any aspect of the publication of trail hunting routes and/or public safety in respect of trail hunting on National Trust land was discussed.

Having made enquiries within the Force the answer is no information is held.

Reference: 9116 - 17
Date: 08/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 9th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

How many police dogs does the force have? Please provide figures every financial year since 2006.
2013-27
2014-27
2015-27
2016-25
2017-16
How many police dogs have been injured (please state type of injury such as stab, kick etc) in the line of duty since 2006?  Please provide breakdown per financial year.
2013-1
2014-2
2015-0
2016-0
2017-0

How many of those had to retire due to their injuries?
0

How many police dogs have been killed or had to be put to sleep due to injuries sustained in the line of duty in the force area since 2006? Please provide breakdown per financial year.
0

What is the cost of training a police dog from puppy to active duty? If there are different costs for different categories/specialisms, i.e. drug dogs, bomb dogs etc, please provide a breakdown for each ‘type’.

What is the cost of annual upkeep for a police dog? Please provide breakdown per financial year since 2006.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  In relation to questions 5 and 6 we have been unable to retrieve any information to answer these as whilst the Dog Unit does have an overall budget for pay and running costs there is nothing within it for the specific training of a dog or the annual upkeep.   

 

 

Reference: 9115 - 17
Date: 08/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 8th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 8th November 2017.  I note you seek access to the information detailed below.

How much money is owed by non British citizens/ cars not registered to the DVLA for speeding offences committed between 1st January 2012 and 30th September 2017? Please break this data up by year. E.g. 1/1/12 – 31/12/2012.
Please, if possible, detail what the offences are.
We have made enquiries with our Central Ticket Office and they have advised us that ethnicity is recorded but not nationality and whilst Cleveland Police issue the tickets the fines are paid to/collected by HM Courts and paid directly to the Treasury so our answer on this occasion must be no information held.

Reference: 9114 - 17
Date: 08/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 8th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 9th November 2017.  I note you seek access to the information detailed below.  It should be noted that the information requested is recorded and held by financial and that is how we have provided it.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, please could you provide me with the following information:

a. The number of people who have been arrested for begging (or offences under S.3 Vagrancy Act 1824) for each calendar year from 2014 to 2017 (to date) (so 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 to date).
Begging in a public place
2013/14 – 15 
2014/15 – 5 
2015/16 – 8 
2016/17 – 24 
2017/18 – 9 to date of request
Vagrant - being found in or upon enclosed premises
2013/14 – 13 
2014/15 – 18 
2015/16 – 7 
2016/17 – 6 
2017/18 – 2 to date of request

b. The number of people who have been charged with begging (or offences under S.3 Vagrancy Act 1824) in each calendar year from 2014 to 2017 (to date) (so 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 to date).
Begging in a public place
2013/14 – 14 
2014/15 – 5 
2015/16 – 8 
2016/17 – 22 
2017/18 – 9 to date of request
Vagrant - being found in or upon enclosed premises
2013/14 – 1 
2014/15 – 6 
2015/16 – 6 
2016/17 – 4 
2017/18 – 0 to date of request

c. The number of people who have been arrested for causing or allowing a child to beg (or offences under S.4 Children and Young Persons Act 1933) for each calendar year from 2014 to 2017 (to date) (so 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 to date).
a) None

d. The number of people who have been charged with causing or allowing a child to beg (or offences under S.4 Children and Young Persons Act 1933) in each calendar year from 2014 to 2017 (to date) (so 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 to date).
a) None


 

Reference: 9112 - 17
Date: 07/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 8th December.  I note you seek the following information:

1) Do you have a category/label on your crime/incident database that differentiates if they occurred in rural or urban areas? Yes / No

We do not have a category label. Urban and rural incidents are identified by locations. When staff create incidents, the location/address depicts whether this is an urban or rural area by using map co-ordinates/eastings and northings.

i) If Yes, What classification system do you use to differentiate between urban and rural areas when recording crimes/incidents? (e.g. the National system or local one, please specify the categories) –
See above

2) Are you able to tag/label crimes/incidents that occur on farmland on your database? Yes / No

i) If Yes, what is this tag/label? – Farm and Farmhouse
ii) How many times has it been used since 2010? - 1024
(Please provide a breakdown of the recorded offences under this tag/label if applicable e.g. sheep
worrying, rustling/theft of livestock, farm equipment theft etc.)

See attached document

3) Since 2014 how many crimes have been recorded by the force under the Wildlife Crime Home Office Code (96)? Nothing recorded under code 96

(Please provide a breakdown of the recorded offences under this code e.g. CITEs Offences, Poaching, Hare Coursing etc.)

4) Do all officers in your force have access to GPS equipment to record the Eastings and Northings of where crimes have occurred? Yes / No

The staff in control room who create incidents have the ability to do so using Eastings and Northings, if a more specific location is not available. This is generally only done with Emergency calls where the BT operator provides these details.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document and above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9111 - 17
Date: 07/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 8th November which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

1. How many requests have been made under the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse or ‘Clare’s law’ since it was introduced in 2014?
2014 – 38
2015 – 50
2016 – 197
2017 – 287 to the date of request
2. How many disclosures were made?
2014 – 13
2015 – 18
2016 – 128
2017 – 182 to the date of request
3. How many requests were rejected and what reasons were given?
2014 – 25
2015 – 33
2016 – 69
2017 – 78 to the date of request

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request we have been advised In relation to question 3 to be able to provide an answer we would need to manually retrieve read and collate data from each file so as to ascertain the reason for refusal.  It is estimated that to try and provide the information after taking into account the time already spent would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
As a gesture of goodwill, outside of the Freedom of information Act, we have provided answers to questions 1 and 2 and also provided the number of refusals for question 3 which were retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I hope that this is of help to you and note that it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

 

 

Reference: 9109 -17
Date: 06/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th November which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:
For each of the financial years 14/15, 15/16, 16/17 and 17/18 to Nov 1 how many crimes are recorded as having happened at sheltered housing and assisted living scheme premises?
For each crime could you please state the nature of the alleged offence and if feasible a description of what happened?
If it is recorded in an easily accessible form please state the outcome of the investigation. Was it detected/undetected/investigation ongoing?
Were charges brought?
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that we do not hold this information and to try and retrieve it, all crimes would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.

Reference: 9108 - 17
Date: 06/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th November which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:
I would like to know of all the reports police have received of skimming devices on cash machines in the force area, since November 1, 2016. 
Please could your response include the date of the incident, where it was found, and any actions that were taken as a result.
Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9107 -17
Date: 06/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th November which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:
Q1.       How many people have you charged (e.g. issued a fined/fixed penalty notice) with ‘middle-lane hogging’ since the law was introduced in 2013 (please provide a year-on-year breakdown)?
Q2. How many people have you charged (e.g. issued a fined/fixed penalty notice) with ‘tailgating’ since the law was introduced in 2013 (please provide a year-on-year breakdown)?
Q3.      Please also indicate how many fines/fixed penalties your force area issued which may be related to either ‘middle-lane hogging’ or ‘tailgating’ including 1) undertaking 2) driving too slow etc.
Having made enquiries within the Force the above are not stand alone offences and would come under careless or inconsiderate driving and we cannot specify which are issued for the type of behaviour detailed above.

Reference: 9106 - 17
Date: 06/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 6th November.  I note you seek the following information:

I have refined my question to just any Protest March or Demonstration by Britain first in the between 07.11.2016 and 07.11.2017.

Having made enquiries within the Force the answer to your question is none.

Reference: 9105 -17
Date: 04/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 6th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Please release the following information under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 -
1. How many fatal car crashes have there been in your police organisation's area broken down by command area this year?
a) There have been a total of 7 fatal road traffic accidents up to the date of your request,
Hartlepool – 1 
Stockton – 1 
Middlesbrough – 3 
Redcar & Cleveland – 2

2. How many were there in 2016, 2015 and 2014?
a) There were a total of 7 in 2014, 6 in 2015 and 6 in 2016 and a breakdown is shown below
2014
Hartlepool – 2 
Stockton – 1 
Middlesbrough – 2 
Redcar & Cleveland – 2 
2015
Hartlepool – 1 
Stockton – 1 
Middlesbrough – 0 
Redcar & Cleveland – 4 
2016
Hartlepool – 3 
Stockton – 2 
Middlesbrough – 0 
Redcar & Cleveland - 1

Reference: 9104 -17
Date: 04/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 3rd November.  I note you seek the following information:

 I.            The number of armed response vehicles in the force in each year 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(1) National Security;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;

With Sections 24(1) and 31(3) being prejudiced based qualified exemptions, there is a requirement for us to evidence harm confirming or denying information is held and also consider the public interest.

Section 24 – National Security
Factors favouring disclosure
The threat from national and international terrorism is ever present and the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and resources are distributed within an area of policing.  In the current financial climate of cuts and with the call for transparency of public spending disclosure would enable improved public debate.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Disclosure of operational information, no matter how generic, cannot be in the public interest if on-going or future operations or investigations to protect the security of the United Kingdom would be compromised.  Security measures are put in place to protect the community we serve.  As evidenced within the harm disclosure would have an impact on certain intelligence operations which could have implications for National Security.
Section 31 – Law Enforcement
Factors favouring disclosure
The release of this information would provide an insight into the Police Service and enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police and assists in providing transparency in the way the Police Service carry out their day-to-day delivery of effective law enforcement.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Specific information relating operational details could provide intelligence which could be manipulated to hinder law enforcement capabilities by providing a valuable asset to individuals and/or organisations wishing to commit crime.  Vulnerabilities and capabilities would be highlighted.  Offender’s intent on committing criminal behaviour could create a mosaic of data and build up a picture and identify areas of vulnerability or non-detection.
Overall balancing test 
Any disclosure has the potential to undermine on-going and future operations to protect the security of the United Kingdom. The risk of significant harm or even death would be increased.  When considering the above points we need to take into account the victims of terrorism. Public safety is of paramount importance and any information which would place individuals at risk and compromise the National Security of the United Kingdom, no matter how generic, is not in the public interest. The effective delivery of operational law enforcement and National Security is crucial and of paramount important to Cleveland Police.  Any disclosure would have a negative impact on law enforcement and national security.  As much as there is a public interest in knowing that all specialised units are equipped adequately, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.

Reference: 9103 - 17
Date: 04/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 6th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:


I am writing with a Freedom of Information request regarding arrests made on suspicion of Indecent Exposure over the dates September 30th 2015 - September 29th 2016 and September 30th 2016 to September 30th 2017.
I would like a breakdown in two Microsoft excel spreadsheets, one for each year requested.
In each spreadsheet, I would like a list of all arrests made on suspicion of Indecent Exposure.
I would like each of the arrests to be accompanied with generic information of the arrest and the suspect. This should include date and time of arrest, gender of suspect and age of suspect.
Also accompanying each arrest, I would like generic information regarding the nature of the arrest, including the geographical location of the arrest and a brief summary of the allegations made against the suspect.
I would also like a column confirming whether the suspect was charged, and a column confirming whether the suspect was convicted, or is awaiting trial.

We have made enquiries within the force and have attached a document that provides all of the information requested that we have been able to retrieve.  It should be noted that we can provide information up to charge however information regarding awaiting trial and conviction is information held by the Crown Prosecution Service and HM Courts. 

 

Reference: 9101 - 17
Date: 04/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 4th November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 6th November 2017.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Please can you tell me how many children at the age of 10 or below the age of criminal responsibility have been found responsible for crimes in the police area and which towns they were in for the past five years (2012 - 2017)
We have made enquiries within the force and must advise that the information requested is recorded and held by financial year and therefore that is how we have provided it.
Within the timescale of your request there were a total of 390 children aged 10 or below that have been found responsible for a crime or crimes, below is the number that have occurred within each of the four Cleveland Police districts.
Hartlepool – 69
Stockton – 107
Middlesbrough – 112
Redcar & Cleveland - 102

Reference: 9100 - 17
Date: 14/12/2017

I write in connection with your request received in this office on 6th November.  Apologies for the late response.  I note you seek the following information:

• Please can you tell me how many crimes were reported to your force in the two-week period from 20th December 2016 – 3rd January 2017? Could I have this information broken down by the type of crime (burglary, assault, sexual assault, etc), and by the eventual outcome (e.g. charged, unresolved)? 

• Please could you provide the same information for the equivalent two-week periods in the two previous years (20th December 2015 – 3rd January 2016 and 20th December 2014 – 3rd January 2015)?  

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document that has the crimes which were validated on the above dates not reported on that date as this is how crimes are recorded, the crime is broken down by the crime type as per the crime tree included although we would rely on the following:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(2) National Security;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;
 
Sections 24, and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test. 

Factors against confirmation or denial for S24 – By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the question exists would render Security measures less effective. This could lead to the compromise of on-going or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the question exists, would enable the public to see where public funds are being spent. Better public awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the question exists, law enforcement tactics could be compromised which could hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime could be committed and individuals placed at risk.

Balance test - Any release under FOI is a disclosure to the world not just to the individual making the request. Modern day policing is intelligence led and this is particularly pertinent with regard to both law enforcement and national security. The public expect police forces to use all powers and tactics available to them to prevent and detect crime and disorder, and maintain public safety.  None of the above can be viewed as an inference that any other information does or does not exist.

Reference: 9099 - 17
Date: 04/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 1st November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

I would like to know how many serving Police Officers and PCSO’s have been convicted of criminal offences in the last five years and what their convictions were for and the sentences given.
a) We have made enquiries with our Directorate of Standards & Ethics and have been advised that in the calendar years 2012 – 2016 there were no Police Officers or PCSO convicted of a criminal office, however in 2017 there was one officer who received a conviction for Drink Driving, the officer was disqualified from driving for 12 months and ordered to pay a fine and costs.
And how many serving Police Officers and PCSO’s have been dismissed due to being convicted of a criminal offence in the last five years.
a) 3, 2 Police Officers and 1 PCSO

Reference: 9098 - 17
Date: 04/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 3rd and 14th November.  I note you seek the following information:

Please would it be possible to receive information on the following questions for the Cleveland Police area;

- What is the total sum of speeding offences registered within your constabulary during the last five years? 53608 were recorded by Central Ticket Office. This includes camera offences and ticket offences. We have covered the time period 01/01/2013 – 01/11/2017

- Within your constabulary, what is the location of the speed camera that catches the most amount of people speeding?

Easington Road (30 mph stretch) Hartlepool

- Within your constabulary, what is the highest speed (mph) recorded by any one speed camera?
(Please include speed restriction)

100mph in a 50 mph limit.

- Of all total speeding offences during the last five years, please provide the following demographics:

1. Age
2. Sex
3. Location

If the information is not held for all the years requested, please can you provide whatever information you do have within this time period for each point?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that there are in excess of  50,000 files that would require retrieving and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  However as a gesture of good will we have provided answers to some of the above questions.

Reference: 9097 - 17
Date: 04/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 2nd November which we received in this office on 3rd November.  I note you seek access to the following information:

*Who provides Cleveland Police’s employers’ liability/public liability insurance?
Travellers Insurance Co as listed on Bluelight Procurement Database.

*How much is the annual premium for this?

*How much was the annual premium in the years: 2017; 2016; 2015; 2014; 2013; 2012 please?

For question 2 and 3 we would rely on:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1 (1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

We are not disclosing the above requested information, pursuant to the exemption provision of Section 43(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which states that under Section 43 of the Act (Commercial Interests information is exempt information:
a) If it constitutes a trade secret
b) If its disclosure would or would likely to prejudice commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it)

This exemption is a qualified and class based exemption. A class based exemption means the legislators, when writing this piece of legislation, considered that the release of this type of information would cause harm to either the authority or individuals involved. Accordingly therefore Cleveland Police do not need to communicate the harm in disclosure.

Public Interest Test
Factors favouring disclosure

Use of public resources - where public resources are being used, there is public interest in accountability and justification. There is public interest in establishing that the Cleveland Police has negotiated a competitive rate for Services.

Factors favouring non-disclosure

Interests of third parties - where third party interests may be jeopardised by the release of information that relates to sensitive commercial information held about a business. Disclosure of information specific to that one commercial arrangement is likely to negatively impact on the commercial interests of the company concerned.  Releasing the amount of money paid could prejudice the commercial interests of that company. The release of this information may give other companies an unfair advantage should they wish to tender for services.

Balancing Test

When balancing the public interest test you will need to consider whether the information should be released into the public domain. In this case there is the use of public resources favouring disclosure which needs to be weighed against the interest of third parties for non-disclosure.  By releasing the requested information the commercial interests of a business may be compromised, along with the relationship the force has with that company.  Therefore the factor favouring non-disclosure, interests of third parties outweighs the factor favouring disclosure, as the contract for Insurance is due to be retendered within the next 4 months and therefore this information is commercially sensitive as divulgence may impact the bid submissions received back.

Reference: 9096 - 17
Date: 03/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 2nd November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within this office resulting in a considerable backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated. I note you seek access to the following information:

1. The number of requests to your force from individuals seeking deletion of their custody image from all police databases since the publication of a Home Office review on the issue on February 24, 2017
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/custody-images-review-of-their-use-and-retention).
Please give figures on applications for deletion for the period from (and including) February 24/2017 to (and including) October 31/2017.

2. The number of those requests that have, as of October 31, been: a) Accepted b)Refused c)Are still under consideration.

Reference: 9095 - 17
Date: 01/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 2nd November which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

I would like to know how much Cleveland Police has paid in legal settlements out of court in: 2017; 2016; 2015; 2014; 2013 and 2012 please.

And also how much compensation the force has paid out in court settlements in those years.

I would also like to know how much Cleveland Police has paid out in external legal fees in those years.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request they have stated that to ascertain only the external fees would be a manual trawl through various reports it is estimated that this alone would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.
 

Reference: 9093 - 17
Date: 01/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 2nd November 2017.  I note you seek the following information:

Under the Freedom of Information Act, could I request the following information:
 
-          How many times have police been called to an incident/disturbance involving the drug ‘Spice’?
 
Please could I get a breakdown by year, including 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017?

Having made enquiries within the Force the answer to your request is as follows:
2017 – 66
2016 – 34
2015 – 15
2014 – 1

Reference: 9094 - 17
Date: 01/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 2nd November 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

I am submitting a Freedom of Information request relating to disclosure of details on hate crimes recorded by Cleveland Police Force during the period April 2016 to March 2017, inclusive, as follows:

Q1. The total number of race hate crimes recorded by police for the census period stated.
Q2. In relation to Q1 - please provide a breakdown by calendar month.
Q3. Further to Question 1, of the total number of race hate crimes recorded, please provide a breakdown by ethnicity of the victims, including those where ethnic identity was not specified or not recorded. Please also include in the response a breakdown by sex of the victim; male / female.
Q4. The total number of religious hate crimes recorded by police for the census period stated.
Q5. In relation to Q4 - please provide a breakdown by calendar month.
Q6. Further to Question 4, of the total number of religious hate crimes recorded, please provide details of the number of religious hate crimes where the victim's religious identity was recorded as
Muslim or perceived Muslim, and those where religious identity was not specified or not recorded.
Please also include in the response a breakdown by ethnicity of the victim and the breakdown by sex of the victim; male / female.
Q7. Please confirm if your police force has implemented the 2015 Home Office directive to record anti-Muslim offences as a separate category of hate crime.

We have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve.  Please note that in relation to question 7 we have been advised by the department that provides information of this nature that they are not aware of any Home Office directive to record anti-Muslim offences as a separate category of hate crime. We are provided with a template to complete to ensure we comply with all Home Office requirements. We include all religions/faiths within the template and they are clearly marked accordingly in the document attached

 

Reference: 9082-17
Date: 11/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 30th October 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within this office resulting in a considerable backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated. I note you seek access to the following information:

I am writing to you to kindly request details pertaining to your ‘release under investigation’ notice. Specifically, I would like a copy of your template release under investigation notice please.

Having made enquiries within the Force and we have attached the document you have requested.

Reference: 9027 - 17
Date: 10/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 11th October which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within this office, which has led to a substantial backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated.  I note you seek access to the following information:
1) Please state the number of police dogs in the service of your police force at the end of each of the following financial years:

i)  2012/13 – 26
ii) 2013/14 – 27
iii) 2014/15 - 24
iv) 2015/16 - 26
v) 2016/17 - 26
vi) 2017/18 – 47 with 8 in development
PLEASE NOTE the number provided for 2017/18 is for a Tri unit that includes dogs from Cleveland, Durham and North Yorkshire forces.

2) Please state the total spent by your force on your police dog department for each of the following financial years:

i) 2012/13 - £1,188,350 
ii) 2013/14 - £1,221,309 
iii) 2014/15 - £1,021,409 - Joint Unit with Durham Constabulary 
iv) 2015/16 - £966,496 - Joint Unit with Durham Constabulary
v) 2016/17 - £917,436 – Joint Unit April – Jul and then Tri Unit Aug – March Cleveland, Durham and North Yorkshire
vi) 2017/18 - £863,548 – Tri Force based on a forecast to 31st March 2018
Please note the above figures are those for Cleveland Police only.

3) Please state the number of occasions that police dog units were deployed in each of the following financial years:

i) 2012/13 – 7741 
ii) 2013/14 – 8630 
iii) 2014/15 – 7302 
iv) 2015/16 – 6434 
v) 2016/17 – 3809 
vi) 2017/18 – 3884 to 08.01.2018
We note that you have requested the information up to 01.10.17 but when we have chased the department that holds this data they have provided up to 08.01.2018.  TO avoid further delay we have provided those figures, if this are not suitable for your need please come back to us and we will endeavour obtain the information for 2017/18 up to 01.10.2017 for you.
 

 

 

Reference: 8962 - 17
Date: 27/12/2017

I write in connection with your request for information dated 21st September 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Please accept our apologies for the late response which has been caused by staffing issues leading to a large backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated. Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you:

I would like to understand if your police force uses a mobile app and if so, its associated costs. If there are multiple, I am specifically interested in understanding about the use of workforce apps used by officers day-to-day.

If possible, can you provide the following details in your response, please?

Name:
SmartWorks.
Supplier:
Capita.
Cost:
~£150k per annum
Platform:
Android
Lifespan:
Annual renewal of license (in use since 2014)

Reference: 8796 - 17
Date: 29/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 26th July 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 27th July 2017.   Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within this office resulting in a considerable backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you,

I would like to know how many men and women in same sex relationships were victims of domestic violence (inflicted by their partners) in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 (so far)?
If possible, I would also like to know the ages and sexes of each victim.
We have made enquiries within the force and have provided information in relation to offences of violence for the period 2013 – 2015 however we must advise you that not all domestic violence incidents involve violence and the information provided relates only to cases where violence has occurred.

The number of violent crimes where the offender has been sanctioned and was the same-sex partner/ex-partner of victim.

2015 - 13
2016 – 1
2017 – 8

Data quality issues / caveats:
The recording of the domestic violence aggrieved pre-2015 was inconsistent and therefore it is not possible to provide the statistics for these years (9% of DV crimes missing an aggrieved marker in 2015, 2% in 2016, and 0% in 2017).  The gender of around 4% of DV victims is not recorded so these cannot be included in the stats.
The stats rely on the correct offender/victim relationship being selected – a final check has been made to ensure only those correctly selected as spouse/partner are included in the numbers.

 

Reference: 8677 - 17
Date: 02/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 20th June 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within this office resulting in a considerable backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated. I note you seek access to the following information:


Please find my request below, which relates to the organisation’s contract relating to their energy management system. Not all organisations have energy management system and if the organisation does not have one please ignore the contractual part of my request (1-6) and concentrate on questions 7-12.
 
1.       The supplier who provides the software to the organisation?
2.       The cost associated with the software. Please provide me with the annual spend.
3.       What is the brand of the software?
4.       What is the duration of the contract?
5.       When does this contract expires?
6.       When does the organisation plan to review this contract?

a)  We do not have a contract for energy management software

7.       Can you please provide me with the contract description of the services provided under the agreement with the supplier? This also includes potential extensions and support and maintenance services.
 
8.       What is the organisation’s annual energy spend for the following:
a.       Electricity
b.      Gas
c.       Water
9.       What is the total number of meter points for Electricity for:
a.       Non Half Hourly (NHH) meter points
b.      Half Hourly (HH) meter points
10.   What is the total number of Gas meter points?
11.   What is the total number of Water meter points?
12.   What is the total number of meter points for specialist gases and liquids?
13.   Can you please provide me with the contact details of the key person responsible for this contract or around energy management.
 
14.    Can you please send me the organisations’ energy management strategy/plan that covers 2017?

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  Again apologies for the late response.

Annual spend (budget for 2017/18)
Electricity 784k
Gas 154k
Water 115k

Meter points:
Electricity – NHH 15
Electricity – HH 10
Gas 16
Water 17 (plus 3 non-metered properties)
Person responsible for contract / energy management – Procurement & Facilities Management.

Reference: 8673 - 17
Date: 08/01/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 19th June 2017 which was received by Cleveland Police on 20th June 2017.  Please accept our sincere apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues within this office, which has led to a substantial backlog of requests, your patience is appreciated.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you,

Could you please disclose how many people within the TS postcode are currently on the terrorism 'watch list'
Could you please disclose how many arrests relating to 'terrorism' there have been in the TS region since 2005.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 24(2) National Security;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;
This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

Sections 23 is an absolute exemption, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.  In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.
Sections 24, and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test. 

Overall harm for partial NCND
Whilst every effort should be made to release information under FOIA on this occasion we should be mindful that release under FOIA is a disclosure to the world, not just to the individual making the request. To confirm whether or not information is held pertinent to this request would reveal policing intelligence about whether or not the force is aware of terror suspects within the TS postcode area.  It is also important to bear in mind that both North Yorkshire Police and Durham Constabulary have some TS postcodes within their force boundaries.

Public Interest Considerations
Section 24 – National Security
Factors favouring disclosure
The threat from national and international terrorism is ever present and the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and resources are distributed within an area of policing.  In the current financial climate of cuts and with the call for transparency of public spending disclosure would enable improved public debate.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Disclosure of operational information, no matter how generic, cannot be in the public interest if on-going or future operations or investigations to protect the security of the United Kingdom would be compromised.  Security measures are put in place to protect the community we serve.  As evidenced within the harm disclosure would have an impact on certain intelligence operations which could have implications for National Security.
Section 31 – Law Enforcement
Factors favouring disclosure
The release of this information would provide an insight into the Police Service and enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police in providing officers with an opportunity to work outside of their force’s jurisdiction in order to enhance their police knowledge and skills which assists in providing transparency in the way the Police Service carry out their day-to-day delivery of effective law enforcement.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Specific information relating to terrorism is valuable intelligence which could be manipulated to hinder law enforcement capabilities by providing a valuable asset to individuals and/or organisations wishing to commit crime.  Vulnerabilities and capabilities would be highlighted.  Offender’s intent on committing criminal behaviour could create a mosaic of data and build up a picture of known terrorist incidents and identify areas of vulnerability or non-detection.
Overall balancing test 
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that any investigations into terrorism are being investigated effectively, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in these highly sensitive areas. 
Any information identifying the focus of specific policing activity, such as details of arrests relating to terrorism or persons being on a ‘watch list’ could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety, and have a negative impact on both National Security and law enforcement.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of National Security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.  It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.