11248 - Osman Warnings

I write in connection with your request for information dated 28th August 2019 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request, and our response.

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act about Osman (threat to life) warnings issued to youths in your police force since 2008.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am only interested in offenders aged 10 to 17 inclusive at the time the Osman warnings were given.
I would like to know for every financial year since 2008.
a) how many youths were given Osman warnings in total - 1
b) how old they all were (eg one 10-year-old, 15 17-year-olds etc)

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the answers we have been able to retrieve for anything else 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 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 31(1) Law enforcement;
Section 38 (1) (a) (b) Health & Safety
Section 40(2) Personal Information
This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

Section 40(2) Personal information
Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is a class based and absolute exemption. This indicates that 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 the individuals involved.
Whilst it is publicly acknowledged that the police issue these notices to provide a breakdown of the categories requested could place an individual at risk and the Police Service has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect a person whose life is in real and immediate danger from the criminal acts of another.

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 exemption:

Section 31(1) (a) (b) Law Enforcement.
Cleveland Police and the wider Police Service have a duty of care to the community to ensure all incidents and investigations are dealt with appropriately and in the strictest confidence.

Any disclosure under Freedom of Information is a disclosure to the world in general and irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held Cleveland Police will never reveal any detail which could confirm that any information is held concerning a specific individuals or incidents.

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 to ensure investigations, enquiries, etc. are dealt with appropriately.

Factors favouring Non-Disclosure:
Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t 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 specific categories of threats could reveal policing activity. The Police Service will never disclose information which could identify investigative activity and therefore undermine their investigations. To do so would hinder the prevention or detection of crime.

Balancing Test: Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, public safety and the ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount importance to the Police Service. Confirmation or denial of whether such information is held would undoubtedly compromise both law enforcement and the health and safety of an individual. Therefore, it is my opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming whether or not any other information is held by Cleveland Police is not made out.

Section 38 (1) (a) (b) Health & Safety
Disclosure of information which would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of any individual, is covered by this exemption. This is a prejudice and qualified-exemption, and the harm and PIT in disclosure is outlined below.
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 above following exemption:
Cleveland Police and the wider Police Service has a duty of care to the community to ensure all incidents and investigations are dealt with appropriately and in the strictest confidence.

Any disclosure under Freedom of Information is a disclosure to the world in general and irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held Cleveland Police will never reveal any detail which could confirm that any information is held concerning a specific individuals or incidents.

Considerations favouring non-disclosure.
The inappropriate release of information could undermine an on-going investigation and/or the courts system?

Balancing Test: whilst the public interest considerations favouring disclosure are noted in considering the arguments for and against release of the information requested, the balance in the public interest favours non-disclosure. Disclosure, at this moment in time other law enforcement may either be compromised or significantly weaken any on-going investigations and any future investigations.

The disclosure of details requested regarding Osman/Threat to Life warnings, coupled with any information already known could lead to the identification of an individual. For example, if a criminal suspects someone has been given such a warning then they will become aware that there is intelligence available and this could therefore place that individual at risk. The slightest indication or evidence confirming their suspicions would be enough for them to justify taking unlawful action against those they ‘suspect’ have provided the police with intelligence. Disclosure of low level data could ultimately lead to threats, intimidation, serious violence, and serious damage to property or in extreme cases death. Such harm might not be just to the recipient of the warning but also associates and family.

PIT – For disclosure
The purpose of the Act is to make public authorities more accountable, and the public interest will favour disclosure, where the authority has not fulfilled its function. The public interest may be served by providing information because in the particular circumstances, it is simply the right thing to do.

PIT – Non Disclosure
The threat to individuals is understandably an emotive issue and the disclosure to the world of the details pertaining to such threats, could lead to those individuals, who intend to cause harm, obtaining information relative to how the police are dealing with such cases and provide them with a mosaic picture for this force and others adjoining. The public interest will not be served if disclosure breaches the obligations placed on an authority under the European Convention on Human Rights. This principle applies to a wide range of individuals, from offenders their families, victims, and those, who suffer intimidation or assault because of misidentification as a result of disclosures. The interests of innocent persons and their families may be jeopardised by disclosure.

Balance.
Where there is obvious or significant risk to people’s health and safety balance should usually fall in favour of non-disclosure, unless there is significant evidence to weight the balance for disclosure. In this case that weight of evidence is not found.

In accordance with Section 17(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this communication acts as a Refusal Notice for questions 1 and 3 of your request.

No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.

Please note any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced