FOI 90/25 Operation Magnolia
Enquiry Reference: 90- 25
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response.
We are writing this letter to request information in respect of Operation Magnolia under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The requested information is as follows :-
1) How many reported cases have there been since the investigation commenced. We would be grateful if this could be broken down year by year?
Answer
181 victims broken down into years as follows
2014 - 36
2015 - 45
2016 - 264
2017 - 117
2018 - 70
2019 - 73
2020 - 41
2021 - 51
2022 - 46
2023 - 53
2024 - 22
Having made enquiries within the Force the above information is what we can disclose. For Anything 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 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 exemption:
Section 30(1) Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities
Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a public interest test.
A class-based exemption means that the legislators, when writing this piece of legislation, considered that the release of this type of information would cause harm to either the Authority or individuals involved. Therefore, Cleveland Police do not need to communicate the harm in disclosure.
Factors favouring Disclosure for Section 30:
The public is entitled to know what their public funds are spent on. Investigations may be closed, and any proceedings may have been completed, but the investigations may have been high profile and had national implications.
Factors favouring Non-Disclosure for Section 30:
By releasing the information requested the Force’s future law enforcement capabilities could be affected and this would hinder the prevention and detection of crime.
Balancing Test:
The ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount importance to the Police Service. Releasing this information could 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(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this notification acts as a Refusal Notice to this section of your request.
2) How many officers have been under investigation since the commencement of the investigation and how many are still under investigation now?
Answer
See above
3) Why haven’t charges been brought against any officers? Is this due to a lack of evidence or officers in fact passing away?
Answer
See above
4) Have any cases been passed to the CPS and if so, how many, when was this done and what was the response received?
Answer
See above
5) Details of the current investigating officer.
Answer
DCI Robinson
6) How many officers are currently assigned to the investigation?
Answer
4
Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.
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