FOI 303/25 Briefcam

Enquiry Reference: 303-25                                                                                               

 

I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request.  Below is your request and our response.

 

1. Does your force currently use or has it previously used BriefCam video analytics software?
1. If yes, in what capacity has it been used (object tracking, video summarization, facial recognition)?
2. If yes, please provide the date of the start (and of the end if relevant) of use.
3. Has your force trialled or tested BriefCam? If so, when did the trials begin, and what were the objectives?

• Yes, a free 45-day trial. The trial commenced on 11/02/2025 till 28/03/2025. It was in relation to object tracking and facial recognition for a specific enquiry only, it is not deployed force wide.

 

1. Has your force entered into any contracts or agreements related to BriefCam software?
1. If yes, please provide the total cost of any purchases or subscriptions since January the 1rst 2020.

• No

1. Has your force used any video analytics software capable of facial recognition, object tracking, or crowd monitoring? If so, which ones?

• No

1. Has your force trialled or tested any AI-based surveillance tools since January the 1st 2022?

• Yes

1. If so, please provide any available reports, evaluations, or risk assessments related to these trials.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we hold and for anything else we 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.

 

The Cleveland Police Service can confirm it holds information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

 

Section 31(1) - Law Enforcement

Section 43(2) Commercial Interests

 

This should not be taken as an indication that the information you have requested is or is not held by Cleveland Police.

Section 31 is prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or denying that any other information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.

Section 43 is a class based qualified exemption which means the public interest must be considered.

 

Factors favouring Disclosure 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 to ensure investigations, enquiries, etc. are dealt with appropriately.

 

Factors favouring Non-Disclosure Section 31:

Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, to release to the world tactical information could compromise the effectiveness of law enforcement. It would also help criminals or those with a criminal intent to build up a picture of where police resources are deployed.

 

Public Interest Test under Section 43

Considerations Favouring Disclosure

 

When information disclosed relates directly to the efficiency and effectiveness of a police force or its officers it is generally of benefit to the community.  In this case, the release of information will enable the public to have a better understanding of the financial workings of Cleveland Police. It would also enable the public to understand the efficiency and effectiveness of the Cleveland Police service.

There is also a legitimate public interest in knowing that Cleveland Police financial resources are used appropriately i.e. there is not under-spend or over-spend in certain areas and that we are making the best use of financial resources available to us.

 

Balancing Test:

 

We have carefully considered your request for information. The public interest test is centred on whether information should be released to the world so that ANY person can view this information not just you as a requestor. In this case the right of the public to know needs to be weighed against the damage caused to our suppliers and ultimately Cleveland Police

The use of public funds and the fact that public authorities must be open and transparent are powerful arguments. There is an identifiable public interest in knowing that excessive or unnecessary amounts of public funds (including taxpayers’ money) are not being spent and that Cleveland Police procures service providers fairly and correctly and also obtains value for money. However, this is offset by the fact that the authority is already subject to financial audit and is therefore already held accountable for the money that it spends or utilises.  Therefore, having weighed up both parts of the public interest test, I have decided on balance it is in the public interest to withhold the requested information.  The release of the requested information has the potential to harm the relationship between Cleveland Police and any current or future suppliers of procurement and contractual services.

 

Public safety and the ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount importance to the Police Service. Releasing this information would undoubtedly compromise law enforcement.  As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and if an FOI disclosure revealed information to the world that would undermine the security of the national infrastructure, offenders could use this to their advantage which would compromise public safety and more worryingly encourage offenders to carry out further crimes.

 

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.

 

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