FOI 207-24 Hostage & Crisis Negotiator
Enquiry Reference: 207-24
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.
I'm trying to collate information on policing for hostage and crisis negotiations to understand how forces are tackling serious crime.
Please can you provide information to the below under the freedom of information act, if possible:
- How many officers on the force are currently hostage and crisis negotiator trained?
Please see below exemption s31(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement
- What is the type of training that is undertaken for this?
Training consists of attending a residential course which includes assessed role plays. Role play is evident within the negotiator professional profiles publicly available via You searched for negotiator - College of Policing.
- How many days does training take?
The National Crisis Negotiator Course is two weeks long.
- Who provides the training?
Training is provided by various UK Police Forces.
- How many officers undertook hostage and negotiator training in the individual years between 2017 - 2023?
|
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
|
4 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
Having made enquiries within the above information is all we can provide and for anything else we reply 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)(a) & (b) Law Enforcement;
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.
Harm
The FOI Act is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we are expressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to the UK.
Where disclosure will likely jeopardise the primary functions of Cleveland Police, namely, to prevent and detect crime as well as apprehend and prosecute offenders, information needs to be protected.
In view of those functions the tactical role of Negotiators is to deal with incidents and negotiate with subjects to resolve operations in line with the incident commander’s strategy. By doing so they provide stability and support to those in command of such incidents. Therefore, providing the number of trained Negotiators within Cleveland Police along with other forces, would aid criminals to identify in which force areas the level of such a resource might be deemed as weaker, and use this knowledge to their advantage in furthering criminal activity around the force area and country as a whole.
In addition, naming the forces that deliver Negotiator training would provide enough information for individuals (or groups of individuals) with criminal or malicious intent to locate, reconnoitre and directly target relevant training facilities. This would include disrupting the ability to provide such training safely and efficiently. Ultimately, this would provide criminals a tactical advantage over the police, which could then be used to hinder our ability to fulfil basic law enforcement functions.
The disclosure of information which is likely to undermine the Police service’s ability to serve the public by providing the primary functions stated, can only be considered as being harmful to the public.
Public Interest Test
Considerations favouring disclosure - Disclosure would allow for greater public awareness and openness over Cleveland Police resource capability to deal with Crisis negotiation situations. As a result, the public would become more informed on how and where public funds are being spent in this area of policing and gain a greater knowledge of the resources available to prevent and detect crime. That can lead to a reduction of crime and give the public more confidence in reporting incidents of crime, disorder, and anti-social behaviour.
Considerations favouring non-disclosure - Disclosing the requested information would have a detrimental impact upon operational policing. Disclosing the number of trained Negotiators within Cleveland Police along with information relevant to their training, would provide those individuals or groups within the criminal fraternity a significant operational advantage as the information could be used with a view to disrupt training, or develop tactics that would divert resources away from locations that they wish to target. This would clearly jeopardise the ability of Cleveland Police to respond appropriately to criminal activity and thereby protect the public.
The requested information could be used to compromise law enforcement capabilities by decreasing the ability of the police to fight crime, which would increase the commission of crime and subsequently have a detrimental impact on public safety as well as decrease public confidence in the police force.
Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the requested information would not be in the public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure.
I find that the strongest reasons favouring disclosure are to provide greater public awareness and openness in how public funding is being spent, and whether Cleveland Police is suitably resourced to deal with crisis negotiation situations.
However, the strongest and most decisive reasons against disclosure are the impact that disclosure would have on public safety, and the prevention of the malicious redirecting of Cleveland Police resources.
Clearly the release of any information that is likely to assist the criminal network and impact on our operational and tactical capabilities cannot be in the public interest and whilst wishing to embrace the ethos of information disclosure, this cannot take precedence over public safety.
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