FOI 867/24 Operation Artemis

Dear Sir/Madam 

Enquiry Reference:  867 - 24                                                                                            

I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request.  Below is your request and our response.

I wish to request a copy of all video evidence held in respect of Cleveland Police's engagement of 'operation Artemis' in June 2023.

Specifically the arrest video published to social media which seems to have gone 'missing' never to be found showing police officers detaining the man known locally as 'Steve Stead' upon his arrest at Whitby Street in June 2023 so I can compare this with the video I have in my possession to establish its authenticity...

I can imagine that the nature of my request will be of such that this brings into question an investigation concluded by Cleveland Police in respect of the matter however I am within my rights to request all footage you have in respect of this incident as it was published to social media & then taken down upon the mans death !

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 38 (1)  Health & Safety

Disclosure of information which would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of any individual, is covered by this exemption. This is a prejudice and qualified-exemption, and the harm and Public Interest Test (PIT) in disclosure is outlined below.

Harm – Prejudice

The disclosure of personal information is understandably an emotive issue, and we must be mindful of disclosing information that may not be known to all family members and/or friends.

Irrespective of what information Cleveland Police hold we would not release personal information that could cause distress and mental harm to family members instigated by such a response.

Bearing in mind that the video shows sensitive footage of the late Mr Stead, there is a need to consider what effect a general disclosure into the public domain might have on any other member of the family, or friends. This might risk their own mental or physical health having this brought back in the public domain.

PIT – For disclosure

The purpose of the Act is to make public authorities more accountable; this can be because of obligations placed on an authority under the European Convention on Human Rights, or because it is fair and reasonable to do so. In this instance, it can be argued that the purpose of the Act is to make public authorities more accountable, and the public interest will favour disclosure, where the authority has not fulfilled its function.

PIT – Non-Disclosure

The public interest will not be served if disclosure breaches the obligations placed on an authority under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the right to life, fair trial and privacy. This principle applies to a wide range of individuals.

The public interest will favour non-disclosure when individuals or third-party interests might be jeopardised by release of information that relates to personal affairs of individuals, this can include reputations. The Force have a duty of care (including psychologically) to the families including those of deceased members of the public and releasing this information could no doubt have a detrimental effect on the families. The fact that releasing this could cause the families, alarm or distress and this must also be considered, which falls into favour of non-disclosure.

Balance.

Where there is obvious or significant risk to people’s health and safety balance should usually fall in favour of non-disclosure unless there is significant evidence to weight the balance for disclosure.

In this case that weight of evidence is not found.

Freedom of Information is not a private transaction between the public authority and the applicant, and once released, there is no way of controlling the information, nor control over who sees it.

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