FOI 453-24 Domestic Violence Complaints
Enquiry Reference: 453 - 24
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request, firstly please accept my apology for the delay. Below is your request and our response.
- How many police officers serving with your force had a complaint of domestic violence made against them in each of the last three calendar years
(i) 2021 - 7
(ii) 2022 - 8
(iii) 2023 - 4
- In (i) how many of these cases was disciplinary action taken against the officer and (ii) was some sort of disciplinary sanction imposed on the officer?
- a) See below table.
- For each case where a sanction was imposed, please detail what this sanction was
NOTE: To clarify, this request relates to complaints made against police officers regarding their conduct in their personal lives. It is not asking about complaints concerning how police officers responded while on the job attending cases of alleged domestic abuse
|
Case Recorded |
Outcome |
|
2021 |
No evidence to substantiate - No action |
|
2021 |
Reflective practice |
|
2021 |
No evidence to substantiate - No action |
|
2021 |
No evidence to substantiate - No action |
|
2021 |
Reflective practice |
|
2021 |
No evidence to substantiate - No action |
|
2021 |
Would Have Been Dismissed |
|
2022 |
Would Have Been Dismissed |
|
2022 |
Reflective practice |
|
2022 |
Would Have Been Dismissed |
|
2022 |
No evidence to substantiate - No action |
|
2022 |
Final Written Warning |
|
2022 |
Reflective practice |
|
2022 |
No evidence to substantiate - No action |
|
2022 |
No evidence to substantiate - No action |
|
2023 |
First Written Warning |
|
2023 |
Final Written Warning |
|
2023 |
Reflective practice |
|
2023 |
Written warning |
Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we will disclose, however 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 confirm we hold 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)(g) by virtue of (2)(b) Law Enforcement
Section 31 is a prejudice based and qualified exemption, which requires the Harm in disclosure to be identified and additionally requires a public interest test to be conducted.
Factors favouring disclosure for Section 31
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 and use of Public Funds especially where an investigation relates to a serving officer and relates to upholding these principles. The release of such information would provide further and accurate information in relation to recent public debate.
Factors favouring non-disclosure for Section 31
The Cleveland Police Service is committed to demonstrating proportionality and accountability to the appropriate authorities. However, if the Cleveland Police Service were to either confirm or deny that any other information was held law enforcement may either be compromised, or it could significantly weaken any on-going and any future investigations.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that any other information requested does or does not exist.
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 information is held would undoubtedly compromise law enforcement. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of investigative matters both locally and nationally 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.
In accordance with Section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this notification acts as a Refusal Notice to this section of your request. No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.
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.
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Decision Maker