FOI 145/25 Press Releases for Misconduct
Enquiry Reference: FOI 145-25
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response.
What is the force’s policy on naming police officers charged with criminal offences?
If no local or national policy exists, what is the force’s official position on naming officers in such cases?
- We deal with officers in the same way we deal with anyone else convicted of a criminal offence – we do not pro-actively name on charge, however we would provide the name of the officer if the media asked for this to aid court reporting - we name officers following a conviction and any subsequent gross misconduct hearing.
All press releases we issue relating to officers convicted of a criminal offence and subsequently faced a misconduct hearing and dismissed are on the website.
There are so many intricacies and legal technicalities that mean cases are dealt with individually case by case; but ultimately – yes, we would provide the name of an officer to the media upon charge, if we were legally able to.
Additionally, please provide copies of all press releases issued in 2024 concerning police officers charged with criminal offences.
- We have looked at the content of this question 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 part of your request. This is a class based and absolute exemption, requiring no prejudice or public interest to be considered.
If you visit the Home | Cleveland Police and type misconduct in the search function this will open a page tick news apply the filter and this is all Cleveland Police have published on this matter.
Finally, please provide the number of police officers and special constables charged or summoned to court between 1st January 2024 and 31st December 2024.
- 1
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 confirm that it holds 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)(g) by virtue of (2)(b) Law Enforcement
Section 31 is a prejudice based and qualified exemption, which requires the Harm in disclosure to be identified and additionally requires a public interest test to be conducted.
Factors favouring disclosure for Section 31
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve and there is a public interest in the transparency of policing and use of Public Funds especially where an investigation relates to a serving officer and relates to upholding these principles. The release of such information would provide further and accurate information in relation to recent public debate.
Factors favouring non-disclosure for Section 31
The Cleveland Police Service is committed to demonstrating proportionality and accountability to the appropriate authorities. However, if the Cleveland Police Service were to release any further information then law enforcement may either be compromised, or it could significantly weaken any on-going and any future investigations.
Balancing Test:
Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, public safety and the ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount importance to the Police Service. Releasing further information would undoubtedly compromise law enforcement. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of investigative matters both locally and nationally this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out. In accordance with Section 17(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this notification acts as a Refusal Notice to this section of your request.
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