FOI 89/26 AI Tools
Date: 16/02/26
Enquiry Reference: 89- 26
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would like to request information on the use of AI in the force and in particular in the preparation of intelligence reports to inform operational decisions.
- Does anyone working for your force use AI tools and, if so, which AI tool (Microsoft copilot, Google Gemini, Chat GPT or other)?
- If AI tools are used, what purposes have they been used for? Does this include intelligence gathering or compiling intelligence reports? Has an AI tool ever been found to produce unreliable or untrue information - sometimes known as an 'AI hallucination' - and if so, please provide details of these incidents and how it was handled?
- Do you have any policies, monitoring systems or safeguards regarding the use of AI and when were these introduced?
Answer
In the review and development stage.
For anything else we would rely on the following.
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) 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 Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
The above questions 1 and 2 are asking to cover a broad range of AI Tools across the Force. Not just for officers but those used within or alongside policing systems and software for every frontline and back-office function. Details, if any AI Hallucinations are not easily retrievable or identifiable without a manual search of every AI interaction that has been carried out. This would require extensive checks and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours.
This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act. Once one part of the request is over the time specified the whole request is.
However, In accordance with Section 16 of the Act I have a duty to provide advice and assistance in relation to your request and on this occasion we cannot offer any suggestion on how you could refine this request. In the spirit of the Act we have provided some information before the time limit.
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