FOI 190/25 Sodium Nitrite
Enquiry Reference: FOI: 190-25
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response.
I'm writing under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request information about sodium nitrite.
Please tell me the following:
The number of incidents or crimes or reports received or attended by your police department referencing "sodium nitrite" or logged as relating to sodium nitrite.
In each case, please include a brief description which summarises what happened.
Please provide the results broken down by year for the past two years - 2023 and 2024, as well as the start of 2025, up to and including 10 February.
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 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) 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 in respect of Section 31(1) Law Enforcement
The FOI Act is applicant blind which 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. In this instance the information requested relates to the number of incidents and crimes received by, or attended by, police departments that reference sodium nitrate. This nitrate has been linked in recent media with self-harm incidents by ingestion in large quantities of it.
Crime reports for sodium nitrate is likely to only be reported as a theft or self-harm or forced self-harm incidents. The use of sodium nitrate could be used in big quantities by accident, but also on purpose. Disclosure of a total figure would reveal any ongoing investigations, which would have an undermining effect in the event that any criminal matters are under inquiry, thus hindering the prevention and detection of crime.
To disclose the number of incidents/crimes relevant to one specific substance would set a precedent over disclosure in relation to any other named substances; revealing the viability of each substance set against any other. This would have an adverse risk on public safety, whether that means vulnerable members of society who seek to end their own life, or any other person with mal intent.
Considerations in favour of disclosure – In recent media stories, sodium nitrate has been reported on with allegedly being related to multiple self-harm deaths following ingestion in large quantities of the product. Disclosure would be informative and allow for wider public discussion over such matters.
Considerations in favour of withholding the information - Disclosure of information that undermines the operational integrity of law enforcement capabilities is highly likely to have an adverse impact on public safety and a negative effect on law enforcement generally. This risk to public safety cannot be said to be in the public interest.
Conclusion - The public interest is best served by maintaining the exemption and withholding the total figure information.
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