Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Enquiry Reference: 212 -24
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request,. Below is your request and our response.
I would like to request the number of sexual assaults and rapes taken place in public toilets within your jurisdiction in the past 10 years.
Specifically, I am interested in the following:
The analyst searched for crimes validated from 01/01/2014 – 01/01/2024 which had the MO Location Description including ‘Public Toilet’. Then added in crime types of sexual offences and Rapes. If crimes of this type have been logged with an alternative location description these will not be included.
Below are the crimes with offence types of sexual offences and rapes with an MO location description including ‘public toilet’ when the victim was aged over 18 at the time of the crime.
Victim aged over 18 |
||
|
2021 |
2023 |
088/09 - Exposure |
|
Less than 5 |
088/10 - Voyeurism |
Less than 5 |
|
Below are the crimes with offence types of sexual offences and rapes with an MO location description including ‘public toilet’ when the victim was aged under 18 at the time of the crime.
Victim aged under 18 |
||
|
2022 |
2023 |
019/08 - Rape of a female aged 16 or over |
|
Less than 5 |
019/13 - Attempted rape of a male aged under 16 |
Less than 5 |
|
020/06 - Sexual assault of a female child under 13 |
|
Less than 5 |
088/09 - Exposure |
|
Less than 5 |
088/10 - Voyeurism |
|
Less than 5 |
|
2022 |
2023 |
1: Charged |
|
Less than 5 |
1A: Alternate offence charged |
Less than 5 |
|
If 10 years of data is not available, please provide data from the earliest month you can trace to the most recent month.
Having made enquiries within the Force the above information is all the information we can disclose and for anything else we would rely 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 neither confirm we hold the information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption:
Section 40(2) Personal Information
Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption which does not require me to evidence the harm that disclosure would cause and does not require consideration of a public interest test in justification of its use.
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 public domain. In this case, because of the very low numbers it could be likely to identify the individuals concerned. Such a disclosure would breach an individual's rights under Article 5(1) of the GDPR.
This is not a valid request question under Section 8 of the Freedom of information act. The act only extents to request for recorded information and not opinions or explanations.
In accordance with section 84 of FOIA, responses relate to recorded information held by a public authority and do not extend to providing explanations unless the answers are already held in a recorded form. Section 84 of the Act states: "Information is defined in section 84 of the Act as 'information recorded in any form'. The Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded information. It does not require public authorities to answer questions generally; only if they already hold the answers in recorded form. The Act does not extend to requests for information about policies or their implementation, or the merits or demerits of any proposal or action - unless, of course, the answer to any such request is already held in recorded form." This is explained within ICO Decision Notice FS50191203, which states at paragraph 18: ‘Set out at Section 84, the right of access under the Act is defined as the right to access recorded information held by a public authority. A public authority is under no obligation to create new information, provide general explanations or opinions.
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