FOI 233-24 Female Victims of Homicide
Enquiry Reference: 233 - 24
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request, Below is your request and our response.
Please could you provide us with a list of all female victims of homicide killed between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 (inclusive) which your authority has been responsible for investigating and, for each victim:
- the date of the homicide;
- the names of the victims and the accused / perpetrator;
- the age of the victim;
- the ethnicity/race of the victim;
- the relationship between the accused and the victim;
- the sex of the accused / perpetrator;
- the ethnicity/race of the perpetrator;
- if identified, the way in which the victim was killed;
We have looked at the content of your request and must advise you that we consider the Freedom of information Act 2000 Exemption 21 (Information Accessible by other means) is engaged in relation to this request this is a class based and absolute exemption, requiring no prejudice or public interest to be considered.
If you visit the Cleveland Police website, Man charged with murder as detectives link Middlesbrough incidents. | Cleveland Police it will open a page with the all the information Cleveland police publish on this matter.
We would also 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.
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 30(3) Investigations & Proceedings conducted by Public Authorities
Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a public interest test.
Information exempt by virtue of Section 30 (1)(a)(b) & (c) is exempt information if it has been held by the authority for the purposes of (a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained (i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or (ii) whether any person charged with an offence is guilty of it, (b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has the power to conduct or (c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has the power to conduct.
Public Interest test - Considerations favouring disclosure.
Accountability: Disclosure could provide the investigating officers with additional information.
Public awareness: Disclosure of the information in relation to an on-going investigation may enhance the ability and professionalism of the force and individual officers.
Considerations favouring non-disclosure.
Exemption provisions
Public safety: By the inappropriate release of information, which could undermine an on-going investigation.
Balancing Test: whilst the public interest considerations favouring disclosure are noted in considering the arguments for and against release of the information requested, the balance in the public interest favours non-disclosure. Disclosure, at this moment in time other law enforcement may either be compromised or significantly weaken any on-going investigations and any future investigations.
Also, if possible, we would appreciate the following information.
- whether there were any previous reports from the victim (or any third party) regarding the accused / perpetrator; and
- whether there were any previous reports and / or convictions of any other offences related to violence against women perpetrated by the accused / perpetrator.
For questions 9 & 10 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.
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 30(3) Investigations
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a public interest test.
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 conducting a public interest test.
Harm in complying with s1(1)(a) – to confirm or not whether information is held.
For questions 9 & 10 you are asking for information (aka intelligence) that has been provided to the Police Service in confidence by individuals. The public expect police forces and other law enforcement agencies to use all powers and tactics available to them in their endeavour to prevent and detect crime or disorder and maintain public safety. There are a number of tactics available for gathering intelligence including, as in this case, recorded information that is provided by members of the public when they contact Cleveland Police of their own volition.
The College of Police APP Information Management Module is a national standard adhered to by all police forces across England and Wales. Police Information refers to all information obtained, recorded or processed for a policing purpose and includes information which is processed (known as data, including personal data) and information which has been subject to a process of evaluation (known as intelligence).
It is a business process with an intention to provide focus to operational police and to achieve a disproportionately greater impact from the resources applied to any problem. It is dependent on a clear framework of analysis of information and intelligence allowing a problem-solving approach to law enforcement and crime prevention techniques.
The Police Service would never confirm or deny whether information has been supplied by members of the public relating to a named individual or not, whoever that individual may be, unless there is genuine operational reason to do so. If Cleveland Police reveals information, by confirming information is held (by citing an exemption) or, conversely, stating no information is held, that in itself reveals information about a named individual and would undermine the above APP.
In addition, the flow of information (intelligence) into Cleveland Police could be compromised which would have an impact on our ability to collect reliable and accurate intelligence resulting in more costly and time-consuming methods of collecting information. In addition, confirmation or denial has potential to undermine ongoing operations, investigations as well as any future judicial process.
Finally, and more importantly, any disclosure which would undermine an investigation would also compromise the health and safety of an individual placing them in danger.
Public Interest Considerations
Section 30
Factors favouring complying with s1(1)(a)
Confirming or denying whether information exists relevant to this request would lead to a better-informed general public by identifying that Cleveland Police robustly investigate crime. 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.
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a)
Confirmation or denial that information is held would suggest Cleveland Police take their responsibility to appropriately handle and manage intelligence supplied to them flippantly.
Under FOI there is a requirement to comply with s1(1)(a) and confirm that 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 is not held regarding questions 9 & 10, any information which could be used to undermine prosecutions or aid offenders is not in the public interest.
Section 31 Law Enforcement
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming information is held.
Violence against women is an extremely emotive subject. There are lot of protests and campaigning ongoing into this subject as well as a vast amount of journalistic material in the public domain and this in itself favours confirmation or denial. Please see below examples:
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) neither confirming nor denying that information is held.
Cleveland Police has a duty of care to the community at large and public safety is of paramount importance. If an FOI disclosure reveals information to the world by not adopting an NCND position, this action would compromise the effective delivery of operational law enforcement as detailed in the harm above. Cleveland Police relies on information being supplied by the public. Irrespective of what information is or is not held, by applying substantive exemptions would indicate that information is held and therefore reveal personal information about an individual. Such action would act as a deterrent to the public to provide intelligence to the force and would not be in the public interest.
Balance Test
The points above highlight the merits of confirming or denying that information pertinent to questions 9 & 10 exists. The Police Service relies heavily on the public and other law enforcement agencies providing information. The public has an expectation that any information they provide will be treated with confidence and in line with the APP Information Management Module. Anything which places that confidence at risk, no matter how generic, would undermine any trust or confidence other agencies and individuals have in the Police Service.
The effective delivery of operational law enforcement takes priority and is at the forefront of Cleveland Police to ensure the prevention and detection of crime is carried out and the effective apprehensive or prosecution of offenders is maintained.
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