FOI 789/24 CPS Policy, Guidelines

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Enquiry Reference:  789 - 24                                                                        

 

I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request.   Below is your request and our response.

 

 

We write in relation to police force and CPS decisions to investigate, arrest and prosecute/charge people with offences under ss58, 59 and 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and under s1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, between 2019 and 2024. We request from you, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

 

(1) Copies of any policy or guidance, whether formal or informal, regarding decisions to investigate, arrest and prosecute individuals in connection with the offences referred to above.

 

(2) Any memorandum of understanding between your individual police force and the CPS in relation to the offences referred to above, for example with regard to the operation of the CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors public interest test.

 

(3) All communication between your individual force and the CPS with regards to the operation of policy, whether formal or informal, and/or the development of policy, including informal policy, regarding decisions to investigate, arrest and prosecute/charge individuals in connection with the offences referred to above.

 

(4) All records, such as meeting minutes and communications by email, of discussions at the supervisory level, reviewing and/or making decisions to seek advice with regards to the investigation, arrest and prosecution/charge of individuals in connection with the offences referred to above, and specifically any communications at supervisory level.

 

(5) All communications internally within the force regarding media strategy related to the investigation, arrest and prosecution/charge of individuals for the offences referred to above, and specifically any communications at supervisory level

 

Having made enquiries within the Force your request is investigative specific and not police policy. Any national advice would be available via CPS website and the College of Policing, however information regarding any specific investigation level would be subject of legal privilege, and we would also rely on the following exemptions:

 

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 that it holds 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.

Section 40 (2) Personal Information

 

Section 31 is 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 40 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.

 

By way of explanation to you I would point out the following: Under Section 40(2) 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 2018, or disclosure of the information would contravene any of the Data Protection Principles or cause damage or distress to the data subject.

 

This exemption is engaged where disclosure of information could lead to the identification of an individual, either from that information alone or combined with other information from within the police service or the public domain.  In this case because of the small numbers involved it is highly likely to identify the individuals concerned and such a disclosure would be a breach to an individual’s right to privacy.

 

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:

To confirm or deny that Cleveland Police holds 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 disclosure leading to more criminal activity placing the public in harm’s way.  

 

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. 

 

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 Freedom of Information Code of Practice (see below link) 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. Public authorities are not obliged to accept internal reviews after this date.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-code-of-practice

 

 

Yours sincerely

Information Rights Decision Maker