FOI 199-24 Corruption
Enquiry Reference: 199-24
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response.
On page 145 of 'An inspection of vetting, misconduct, and misogyny in the police service' published by HMICFRS it states:
"The Counter-Corruption (Intelligence) APP lists 12 categories of corruption-related intelligence. It is good practice for forces to use these categories when recording intelligence. All forces should do this consistently to help them understand the threats they face."
The categories are listed on page 146:
- infiltration;
- disclosure of information;
- perverting the course of justice;
- sexual misconduct;
- controlled drug use and supply;
- theft and fraud;
- misusing force systems;
- abuse of authority;
- inappropriate association;
- vulnerability;
- commit, incite, aid, and abet, or assist an offender in the commission of, a crime; and
- other [corruption-related intelligence not categorised elsewhere]."
- For the year 2022/23, please provide the figures recorded in each of the 12 categories.
- If you do not use these categories, please provide details of the categories you use and related figures for 2022/23.
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) 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 FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.
Harm – Sec 31(1)(a)(b)
Disclosures made under the Act are published by Cleveland Police, placing them into the public domain. Should the force release a breakdown of the corruption related intelligence recorded in financial year 2022/23, this would make available to those that are either corrupt, would seek to corrupt police employees or engage in criminal or inappropriate/unethical conduct, with details of Cleveland Police intelligence picture in this area. This information would assist persons that seek to commit criminal offences or engage in inappropriate/unethical conduct to continue to do so. This would hinder the ability of the police to prevent and/or detect crime or apprehend or prosecute offenders, contrary to the public interest.
It should also be noted that disclosures under the Act can appear innocuous but when pieced together with other disclosures under the Act, published material and/or information gleaned about police counter-corruption work, can be used in a ‘mosaic’ way to create a picture for those wishing to commit offences.
Public Interest Test
Considerations Favouring Disclosure
Cleveland Police is a public authority and is ultimately accountable to the general public. When any request for information is made to the police, it is important that the force are transparent, where possible, in responding to that request for information. Disclosing a breakdown of corruption related intelligence recorded in financial year 2022/23, would reinforce our commitment to greater openness and transparency with the general public.
Cleveland Police is granted extraordinary powers in preventing and detecting crime. There is a very clear public interest in providing as much information about the way in which the force ensures that its employees maintain the highest standards of professionalism and integrity. Release of the requested information would accordingly facilitate informed public debate.
Considerations Favouring Non-Disclosure
Police intelligence is an essential tool that enables the police to prevent and detect crime and apprehend those responsible for committing offences. In this context of corruption related intelligence, this information is pivotal in identifying those who are corrupt, seek to corrupt police employees, or otherwise engage in criminal or inappropriate/unethical conduct.
Balance test
When considering whether the release of information is in the public interest, I have to consider whether the public interest is in favour of releasing information into the public domain or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding the requested information. Having considered your request, I accept that there is a public interest in openness and transparency when any request is made for police information. I also accept that there is a public interest in the release of information about the intelligence Cleveland Police recorded in the area of corruption, given the extraordinary powers granted powers to police in society.
The public interest favouring release must be balanced against any associated risk and/or prejudice that would be caused by disclosure. Having carefully considered this, I have found that corruption related intelligence is an important tool available to police in identifying those that are corrupt, seek to corrupt police employees or otherwise engage in criminal or inappropriate/unethical conduct. The public provision of the detail of the intelligence, even in category form, would be likely to assist persons that seek to commit criminal offences or engage in inappropriate/unethical conduct to continue to do so. This would hinder the ability of the force to prevent and/or detect crime or apprehend offenders, contrary to the public interest.
Having carefully considered your request, I have found that the public interest remains in ensuring that Cleveland Police is able to withhold information that would hinder its ability to root out the corrupt, those that seek to corrupt police employees or otherwise engage in inappropriate/unethical conduct. The information requested is therefore refused for this reason.
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) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of Section 23(5) Information Supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.
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.
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 Governance Manager