FOI 700/24 Force Firearms

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Enquiry Reference:  700 - 24                                                                                          

 

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

 

Please provide a list of all types of firearms held in your inventory for use by authorized firearms officers, for each type, specify make, model and caliber. Additionally, where possible, any proposed dates that a review is to be made concerning the continued use of each weapon.

 

Cleveland Police’s ARV officers are equipped with;

 

Daniel Defence Mk18 carbine, 5.56mm calibre.

Glock 17 pistols, 9mm calibre.

Axon Taser X2

Heckler & Koch L104A2 attenuating energy projectile launcher.

 

It is not possible at this time to confirm any dates around review of continued use of each weapon as we are subject to national governance from the Home Office in relation to approved weapon types available to us.

 

Having made enquiries in force and this is all the information Cleveland Police can provide on this and for anything else we rely on the below 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.

 

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(1) National Security.

Section 31(1) 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. 

 

Overall harm

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 on-going Policing operational activity.  The security of the country is of paramount importance and Cleveland Police Force will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so would undermine national security. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in the highly sensitive areas of which they work.  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 24

Confirmation or denial that any information exists relevant to the request would lead to a better-informed public. The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent especially with regards to safeguarding National Security.

 

Factors against confirmation or denial - Section 24

Other organisations outside the Police Service may, or may not, have an active interest in the subject of the question above.  By confirming or denying that any information exists relevant to the request would harm the close relationship that exists between Cleveland Police Force and other organisations.  To confirm or deny whether the force hold any information relevant to the request would allow inferences to be made about the nature and extent of national security related activities which may or may not take place in a given area. This would enable criminal groups to take steps to counterintelligence, and as such, confirmation or denial would be damaging to National Security.  By confirming or denying any policing arrangements of this nature would render national security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of on-going or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.

 

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 there is also a very strong public interest in safeguarding national security.  Any information identifying the focus of specific policing activity, such as details 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.  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.

 

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