11258-Brothels
I write in connection with regards to your request received in this office on 2nd September. I note you seek the following:
I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information for each of the following years respectively: 2016 / 2017 / 2018.
- How many visits did your police force carry out to suspected brothels / properties you suspected to be used for prostitution by more than one individual selling sex / properties you suspected to be used by individuals causing or inciting prostitution for gain, controlling prostitution for gain, or trafficking for sexual exploitation?
a)
2016 – no information held
2017 – 7
2018 – 19
- How much money did your police force confiscate/seize as a result of these visits?
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. This information is exempt by virtue of:
Section 23(1) Information Supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.
Section 31(1) Law enforcement;
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. None of the above can be viewed as an inference that the information you seek does or does not exist.
Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 31
Better awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public, and the public would be able to take steps to protect themselves. Some information is already in the public domain.
Factors against confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 31
By confirming or denying whether we hold this information could compromise law enforcement tactics and undermine the partnership approach which would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. This would impact on police resources, more crime would then be committed and individuals placed at risk.
Balance test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so could undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.
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.
There is also no requirement to satisfy any public concern over the legality of police operations and the tactics we may or may not use. Forces are already held to account by statute, for example the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and independent bodies such as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner. Our accountability is therefore not enhanced by confirming or denying whether any information is held.
Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any information is held regarding these techniques is not made out. This argument is obviously transferable to all police tactics. None of the above can be viewed as an inference that the information you seek does or does not exist.
- In these visits, how many women did you identify in total?
a)
2017 – 9 women spoken with
2018 – 23 women spoken to
- Of these women, how many were charged with keeping a brothel, being a tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel, or being a tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution? And how many were referred into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) on suspicion of being a victim of human trafficking?
- a) No women have been arrested/charged.
National statistics for referrals to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) can be found using the below link:
For anything else we would 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.
Section 30(3) Investigations;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;
Section 31 is a 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.
Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a public interest test.
Overall harm
Although every effort should be made to release information under the Freedom of Information Act, to confirm or deny whether information is or isn’t held could undermine on-going investigations. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, providing assurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat from criminals, this should be countered against the need to protect vulnerable areas, and any on-going Policing operational activity. Confirming or denying whether any information is held relevant to the request would show where policing interest has or has not occurred in any specific area which would enable those engaged in criminal activity to identify the focus of policing targets and identify vulnerable parts of the UK.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial – Section 31
Confirming or denying whether any further information is held would allow the public to see where public funds have been spent and allow the Police service to appear more open and transparent.
Factors favouring neither confirming or denying – Section 31
To confirm or deny that law enforcement holds this information could compromise law enforcement tactics which would lead to a hindrance on the Police Force’s ability to prevent and detect crimes. Vulnerable areas could be identified by force level disclosure leading to more criminal activity placing the public in harm’s way. If information is released confirming or denying that requests have been made this may impact police resources as vulnerable forces may need to increase their resources to reassure the public and protect the surrounding community.
Overall balancing test
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in these sensitive areas. Any information identifying the focus of specific policing activity, such as details of arrests relating to your request, 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. It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.
- During these visits, how many men were charged with keeping a brothel, being a tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel, or being a tenant permitting premises to be used for prostitution? And how many were charged with Exploitation of Prostitution, Causing or Inciting Prostitution for Gain, Controlling Prostitution for Gain, or Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation?
- a) No men have been charged with any offence.
Please note that all 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.