FOI 556/25 Weeks of Action
Date: 25/07/25
Enquiry Reference: FOI 556-25
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response.
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning your police service’s participation in National Crime Agency (NCA)-led or internally driven and coordinated “Weeks of Action” over the past three years (January 2022 – present).
For each operation your service participated in, please could you provide:
- The date(s) of the Week of Action.
- Any associated operation name.
- The thematic focus of the operation (e.g., county lines, cybercrime, modern slavery, firearms, etc.).
- A list of the activity conducted by your service during the operation (e.g., warrants executed, increase patrolling, crime prevention action, public awareness).
- A summary of outcomes achieved by your service, including (where recorded):
o Arrests made
o Charges filed or prosecutions initiated
o Drugs/weapons/assets seized
o Victims identified/safeguarded
o Any other performance metrics or KPIs recorded
- Whether any internal reports or summaries were produced following participation (and if so, whether they can be shared, even in redacted form).
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 neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other 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 23(5) - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement
By neither confirming nor denying that information is held prevents disclosure of whether or not there has been any involvement of a security body in this matter, invoking Section 23(5) of the Act.
Other than where operations are formally avowed, any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists, extremist or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these operational activities (whether information is or is not held in this instance) will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.
The security of the country is of paramount importance and Cleveland Police will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine national security. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by a serious and organised crime, including terrorism, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in the highly sensitive areas of which they work.
Modern-day policing is intelligence led, and intelligence changes on a day-by-day basis. Confirming or denying whether any information is held relevant to the request would show where policing interest has or has not occurred in any specific area which would enable those engaged in criminal activity to identify the focus of policing targets. Any information identifying the focus of this activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations to plan an attack on the more vulnerable parts of the UK. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.
Cleveland Police works in partnership with other law enforcement agencies in order to combat issues such as terrorism and organised crime. Confirming or denying that information exists relevant to this request would seriously undermine this partnership approach.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring disclosure for S24 - The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and to disclose the requested information would allow the public to see where money is being spent and know that forces are doing as much as possible to combat serious and organised crime.
Factors favouring non-disclosure for for S24 – Confirmation of any policing arrangements of this nature would render security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public. To counter this, a full review of security measures would be needed, and additional costs would be incurred.
Factors favouring disclosure for S31 – To disclose the requested data would allow the public to understand that the police are robust in preventing and investigating serious and organised criminal activity. This would enable the public to have a better understanding of efficiency of the force in carrying out its law enforcement role and demonstrate our commitment to openness and transparency.
Factors favouring non-disclosure for S31 – There is an inherently strong public interest in public authorities carrying out operations and investigations to prevent and detect crime. To confirm or deny that the requested information is held could compromise law enforcement tactics in the area of organised criminality, which would hinder the UK Police service's ability to prevent and detect criminality in this area. By confirming Cleveland Police involvement in an operation, or alternatively stating that they had no involvement in an operation, would give vital information to criminals regarding areas of more or less policing activity. Criminals could take steps to avoid detection if they are aware of force areas that do not take part in such operations. The ability of the UK police service to effectively investigate organised crime would be severely compromised.
Where current or future law enforcement capabilities of the force may be compromised by the release of information, it is unlikely to be in the interest of the public.
Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the Public Interest favours the application of the neither confirm nor deny stance in respect of your request. I consider that the benefit that would result from issuing a confirmation or denial does not outweigh the considerations favouring a neither confirm nor deny response.
Any release under FOI is a disclosure to the world, not just to the individual making the request. Police forces work in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies and on a daily basis information is freely shared in line with information sharing protocols. Modern day policing is intelligence led and this is particularly pertinent with regard to law enforcement.
Having considered the arguments for and against, it is my opinion that the public interest test favours maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether the information exists. Cleveland Police will not disclose information that could interfere with investigations or compromise the future law enforcement role of the force.
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