FOI 92/25 Attempted Child Abductions

Enquiry Reference:  FOI 92-25                                                                                 

 

I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request, firstly please accept my apology for the delay.  Below is your revised request and our response.

 

How many attempted and successful child abductions occurred in your regional police force area during the years of 2018 and 2019, broken down by month.

1. a) Below are the crimes of 013/02 - Abduction of a child by other persons, we will not break this down further and would rely on the below exemption.

2018 – 5

2019 – 6

 

How many attempted and successful child abductions occurred in your regional police force area during the year of 2024, broken down by month - and during the month of January 2025, to date.

1. a) Below are the crimes of 013/02 - Abduction of a child by other persons, we will not break this down further and would rely on the below exemption.
2. a) 6

 

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 exemptions:

 

Section 31(1)(a) & (b) Law Enforcement.

Section 40(2) Personal Information

 

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.

Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption which does not require me to evidence the harm that disclosure would cause and does not require consideration of a public interest test in justification of its use.

 

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 operations to ensure investigations, enquiries, etc. are dealt with appropriately.

 

Factors favouring Non-Disclosure for Section 31:

To release information that Cleveland Police holds could compromise law enforcement tactics which would lead to a hindrance on the Police Force’s ability to prevent and detect crimes.  Vulnerable areas could be identified by disclosure leading to more criminal activity placing the public in harm’s way.  

 

 

Factors for Section 40

This exemption is engaged where disclosure of information could lead to the identification of an individual, either from that information alone or combined with other information from within the Police Service or public domain. In this case, because of the small numbers involved releasing a further breakdown could lead to identification of  the individuals concerned. Such a disclosure would breach an individual's rights to privacy.

 

Balancing Test:

The ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount importance to the Police Service. Releasing this information could 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.

 

With respect to the 2024 attempted and successful child abductions could you please tell me:

Where did these attempted/successful abductions take place?

When did they take place? 

What description of the attempted/successful abductor was made available to the public?

What description of the attempted/successful abductor is held on record?

1. a) See above exemptions.

 

Having made enquiries within the Force all the information we will disclose is above with exemptions, but we would also 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 neither confirm nor deny 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 23(5) Information Supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.

Section 23 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in this case.

 

Confirming or denying the existence of whether any other information is held would contravene the constrictions laid out within Section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in that this stipulates a generic bar on disclosure of any information applied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.  None of the above can be viewed as an inference that the information you seek does or does not exist.

 

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