FOI 728/24 VAWG misconduct

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Enquiry Reference:  728 - 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 and staff are currently being investigated for VAWG*-related misconduct and gross misconduct?

 

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 neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to this request as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) if the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions:

 

Section 30(3) – Investigations and proceedings conducted by the public authority

Section 31(3) – Law enforcement

Section 40(5) – Personal information

 

When citing Section 40(5), there is a requirement to consider whether disclosure would be fair. In this case released would not be fair and therefore section 40(5) is classed as absolute and there is no requirement to consider the public interest.

 

Evidence of Harm

 

Should officers currently be subject to investigations for allegations of misconduct, it would likely ensue that in some cases, formal charges may be made. However, we also need to consider that not all allegations are proven and may not lead to a formal charge.

To confirm or deny that any other information is held, would highlight that an officer may be currently subject to an investigation. Irrespective of whether any other information is or isn’t held, ongoing investigations would also be compromised if the offender were made aware an investigation into their behaviour is ongoing, which would enable steps to be taken by them to alter their behaviour and/or destroy evidence.

 

Public Interest Considerations

 

Section 30 – Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying information is held:

Confirming or denying whether any other information exists relevant to this request, would lead to a better-informed general public by identifying that Cleveland Police robustly investigate all aspects of offending, including allegations made against their own officers. This fact alone may encourage individuals to provide intelligence in order to assist with investigations and promote public trust in providing transparency and demonstrating openness and accountability into where the police are currently focusing their investigations.

 

Section 30 - Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) neither confirming nor denying information is held:

Confirmation or denial that any other information is held for this request, would suggest Cleveland Police take their responsibility to appropriately handle and manage intelligence supplied to them flippantly. Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, there is a requirement to comply with Section1(1)(a) and confirm what information is held. In some cases, it is that confirmation, or not, which could disclose facts which would undermine the investigative process, and in such cases, Cleveland police takes advantage of its ability under FOI legislation to, where appropriate, neither confirm nor deny that information is or is not held. Irrespective of what information is or isn’t held, any information which could be used to undermine prosecutions or aid offenders to continue with their abuse, is not in the public interest.

 

Section 31 – Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying information is held:

Disclosure would provide transparency in the way police officers are dealt with when suspected of inappropriate conduct and illegal actions and may improve public debate into the credibility of how Cleveland Police deals with these allegations within the force. It would also serve to demonstrate that Cleveland Police are open and accountable.

 

Section 31 - Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) neither confirming nor denying information is held:

To confirm or deny that any other information is held, would risk undermining the investigative process whilst determining whether any officer is responsible for improper conduct; Cleveland Police has a duty of care to the community at large and public safety is of paramount importance. If an FOI disclosure revealed information to the world (by citing an exemption or stating no information held) that would undermine an investigation, this could be used to offenders’ advantage, which would compromise any potential victims and public safety generally. It may also encourage offenders to carry out further crimes as detailed within the harm above.

 

Cleveland Police relies on information being supplied by the public. Irrespective of what further information is or isn’t held in relation to this request, by applying substantive exemptions would indicate that other information is held and there are currently other ongoing investigations. Such action would act as a deterrent to the public to provide intelligence to the force which would further undermine public safety, with repercussions that could hinder the prevention or detection of crime.

 

Balance Test

The factors above highlight the merits of confirming, or denying, whether any other information pertinent to this request exists. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As part of that policing purpose, various operations may or may not be ongoing. The Police Service will never divulge whether or not information pertinent to a request does or does not exist, if to do so would compromise an ongoing investigation, or undermine the policing purpose in the effective delivery of operational law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and investigations particularly in relation to our own officers, it will be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is my opinion that for these factors, the balance test for neither confirming nor denying that any other information is held is appropriate. No inference can be taken from this refusal that further information 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 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