FOI 250/25 Tagging Breaches
Enquiry Reference: 250-25
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response.
- Please provide me the number of arrests in 2023 and 2024 and so far in 2025 (broken down by month if possible) of people on suspicion of breaching their electronic monitoring (tagging) conditions.
1a. Of the above, please identify how many of these arrests were as a result of a Section 9 (Criminal Justice Act) report from the monitoring company.
- Please also provide the total number of Section 9 notifications in relation to electronic monitoring (tagging) breaches received in 2023, 2024 and so far in 2025 (broken down by month if possible).
Having made enquiries within the Force due to the nature of our recording systems the information requested, is not in an easily retrievable format. Our information retrieval process generally relies on a computer ran report which captures any information recorded upon the surface of a record. Where relevant information is held deeper in a record a manual assessment is usually required to retrieve that information.
In this instance we would not be able to provide the figures because if a person is tagged as part of Court bail conditions, and they later go onto breach the requirements, then the arrest is recorded as breach of bail.
To identify those arrested for breaches, it would require a review of all the breach of bail arrests and then a review of the circumstances to identify whether it was as a result of breaching a requirement linked to the tag.
In relation to the Q 1a it is not held at the case management system level either therefore to determine such detail would require a manual search through all the occurrences created when an Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS) reported a breach, and then compare these against Custody Records. Q 2 is similar to the 1a , potentially hundreds of occurrences would need to be checked and then reviewed to see if they had a statement and Custody Record attached.
The cost of providing you with the information is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond and this falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17(1) of the Freedom of information Act.
In accordance with Section 16 of the Act we have a duty to provide advice and assistance however on this occasion we cannot offer any suggestion on how you could refine this part 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