FOI 48/26 Male suspects in Homicides

Date: 06/02/26

Enquiry Reference: 48-26                                                                                               

 

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

 

1) Between 1 January 2025 - 31 December 2025, how many men were the suspect in a homicide case where the victim was female? Where possible please provide the age and ethnicity of the male suspect. I am happy for you to redact demographic information in the instances where a case is still active - or cannot be shared for other reasons.

1. Of those cases how many resulted in a:

Charge

Conviction

Other outcome - please specify e.g. diminished responsibility, No Further Action, murder suicide

1. Please state if the suspect was facing other charges alongside the suspected homicide crime e.g. sexual offences, firearms, or offensive weapons offence. Please specify the charge(s).

• See below exemption

2) Between 1 January 2025 - 31 December 2025, How many male suspects in homicide cases where the victim was female, were known to the police via a domestic violence marker or domestic violence flag, such as DARA, Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS/Claire's Law)

• 1

3) Between 1 January 2024 - 31 December 2024, How many male suspects in homicide cases where the victim was female, were known to the police via a domestic violence marker or domestic violence flag, such as DARA, Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS/Claire's Law) etc.

• Zero

4) Between 1 January 2025 - 31 December 2025, how many men were the suspect in a case involving the death of a female where a homicide has not yet been confirmed or the case is still under investigation?

• Zero

 

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we will disclose and for anything else 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 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 38(1)(a) Health & Safety

 

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 38 is prejudice and qualified-exemption and the harm and PIT in disclosure is outlined below.

 

Harm – Endanger S.38

The Force have a duty of care (including psychologically) to the families of homicide victims and must assess where its actions would likely to cause further distress to the family.

Releasing the above detail could personally identify a family that have suffered terrible loss a release under FOI is to the world at large and not just the individual.

 

PIT – For disclosure S.38

The purpose of the Act is to make public authorities more transparent and accountable, in this instance the public interest will favour disclosure. 

 

PIT – Non-Disclosure S.38

When a member of the public dies the family of the deceased may be distressed for a considerable period of time. When that death is not due to natural causes the distress can be greater and when it is the result of a homicide the distress can be even more severe.

This can extend to the wider family and to close friends. Cleveland Police have an obligation to treat requests for information under the Act with extreme caution. 

 

Factors favouring Disclosure S.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 incidents involving murder offences that investigations, enquiries, etc. are dealt with appropriately.

 

Factors favouring Non-Disclosure S.31:

To release information that Cleveland Police hold could hinder law enforcement and prejudice prosecutions or aid offenders. In addition, the right to a fair trial could be undermined. Releasing information could affect the Force’s law enforcement capabilities which 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 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 The Force has to consider that disclosure in relation homicides could then appear in the public domain, and this could be detrimental to the families are no longer supported on a daily basis by the services initially available. Therefore, 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.

                                     

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