FOI 512/25 RASSO Investigations
Date: 17/07/25
Enquiry Reference: 512- 25
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response. Please accept our sincere apologies for the length of time it has taken to reply.
We are conducting research into police practices concerning the extraction of digital data from victims of rape and serious sexual offences (RASSO), particularly in light of the updated statutory framework introduced by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the associated Code of Practice.
Specifically, we request disclosure of the following information:
- Policies and guidance
- Please provide copies of any current internal policies, procedures, guidance documents, or internal forms used by your force in relation to the extraction of digital data from victims or witnesses in RASSO investigations.
- Please provide copies of any standard forms, information packs, or other materials provided to victims or witnesses when requesting access to their mobile phones or proposing a download of their data.
Answer
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 we hold the above 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 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.
Factors favouring Disclosure:
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:
Cleveland Police holds information which 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.
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. Confirmation or denial of whether information is held 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.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.
- Compliance with new legal framework
- Has your force adopted the new Code of Practice issued under section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022? If so, please provide the date of adoption and any associated implementation documents.
Answer
No
- Has your force issued any training or operational guidance to officers on the use of the Code and the new statutory framework? If so, please provide details (including training materials if available).
Answer
No. Training and guidance is provided by the College of Policing.
- Technology and digital extraction tools
- What tools or software systems are currently used by your force to extract digital data from mobile phones in the context of RASSO investigations? Are these tools used consistently across all RASSO cases?
- Are these tools configured to allow selective extraction (i.e. only of relevant material), or are they routinely used for full downloads?
- Has your force conducted any audits or reviews of the use of digital extraction tools since the introduction of the new legislation and Code of Practice?
Answer
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 we hold the above 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 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.
Factors favouring Disclosure:
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:
Cleveland Police holds information which 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.
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. Confirmation or denial of whether information is held 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.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.
- Oversight and accountability
- Does your force have a panel or mechanism for reviewing RASSO cases where a victim or witness has challenged a request for access to their digital data? If so, does that panel or mechanism remain in place?
Answer
No
- Does your force collect internal data on how many times digital data has been extracted from victims or witnesses in RASSO cases in the past two calendar years? If yes, please provide those figures.
Answer
No
- Has your force received any complaints about mobile phone data extraction practices from victims or witnesses in RASSO investigations during the last two years? If so, please provide the number of such complaints.
Answer
No
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.
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