On 13 December 2005 I wrote to Kevin Moore of Sussex Police ( 
kevin.moore@sussex.pnn.police.uk ) asking two questions about the policing of the EDO MBM demonstration in Brighton on 10 December 2005, under the terms of the FOIA. Here is the response from Brighton Police.
kevin.moore@sussex.pnn.police.uk ) asking two questions about the policing of the EDO MBM demonstration in Brighton on 10 December 2005, under the terms of the FOIA. Here is the response from Brighton Police.
Your Ref:
Our Ref: FOI xxx
Date: 6 January 2005
Contact Name: Tim Mahony
Tel. Extension: 44557
Direct Dial No: 01273 404334
Dear xxx
I write in connection with your request for information dated 13 December concerning policing costs and numbers for a recent protest about EDO. The request was contained in your email addressed to Supt Moore raising other issues which I understand have been replied to separately.
Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested on costs and numbers under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
1. Cost of the policing operation; The cost of providing you with this information is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the “appropriate level” as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004. To explain, the information is not separately compiled for policing purposes. To compile it would require exhaustive searches of paper and electronic records which would divert staff from other duties for what we estimate would be well in excess of the limits set out in the Regulations i.e. the equivalent of £450 in staff time.
2. Numbers employed on the policing operation; Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Sussex Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question; and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
The exemption applicable to this information is to be found in Section 31(1) of the Act (Law Enforcement) and is a quailed and prejudice-based exemption. It applies because this information relates to the deployment of officers on a specific operation that, if disclosed, may give an indication of how many officers are employed for operations generally.
HARM TEST;
When applying prejudiced based exemptions (on this occasion Section 31 (1) it is necessary to establish what harm disclosure of this information may cause to the integrity and effectiveness of law enforcement and public safety. In this case I have considered that there is substantial risk that disclosure may impede the future ability of Sussex Police to ensure that operational information is not disclosed which would give valuable information to potential offenders, helping them in any efforts to circumvent police strategies and tactics, thereby hampering the ability of the police to provide an effective service to the public.
PUBLIC INTEREST TEST;
When applying such qualified exemptions public authorities are also required to complete a public interest test that must take into account public interest in its widest sense in disclosing the information that has been requested.
Favouring Disclosure; There is of course a legitimate public interest in helping ensure accountability of the police service, contributing to the quality of public debate on policing issues. Disclosure might also help allay public concerns about the standards and quality of police performance.
Against Disclosure; There is a risk that the current or future law enforcement role of the force may be compromised by the disclosure of information relating to operational capabilities, contingency plans and procedures which would help potential offenders to circumvent police strategies and tactics, thereby increasing the likelihood of criminal offences being committed and hindering the police in their duty to prevent them.
BALANCING TEST;
Having taken all the above factors into account, I consider that the disclosure of the information covered by Section 31 is outweighed by the public interest in not disclosing it. It is important that the police service should be as open as possible, and indeed a wide variety of information is made publicly available about the way the service is structured, its general resources and responsibilities, through for example the websites and hard copy data available from the Sussex Police Authority, Sussex Police and various government departments with legislative responsibilities. However it is of crucial importance that police are able to make decisions about resourcing particular operations. For this reason on this occasion I am unable to provide you with the information on police numbers employed that particular operation.
This letter therefore serves as a refusal notice under the Act for the information not supplied
Yours sincerely,
T Mahony
Our Ref: FOI xxx
Date: 6 January 2005
Contact Name: Tim Mahony
Tel. Extension: 44557
Direct Dial No: 01273 404334
Dear xxx
I write in connection with your request for information dated 13 December concerning policing costs and numbers for a recent protest about EDO. The request was contained in your email addressed to Supt Moore raising other issues which I understand have been replied to separately.
Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested on costs and numbers under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
1. Cost of the policing operation; The cost of providing you with this information is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the “appropriate level” as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004. To explain, the information is not separately compiled for policing purposes. To compile it would require exhaustive searches of paper and electronic records which would divert staff from other duties for what we estimate would be well in excess of the limits set out in the Regulations i.e. the equivalent of £450 in staff time.
2. Numbers employed on the policing operation; Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Sussex Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question; and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
The exemption applicable to this information is to be found in Section 31(1) of the Act (Law Enforcement) and is a quailed and prejudice-based exemption. It applies because this information relates to the deployment of officers on a specific operation that, if disclosed, may give an indication of how many officers are employed for operations generally.
HARM TEST;
When applying prejudiced based exemptions (on this occasion Section 31 (1) it is necessary to establish what harm disclosure of this information may cause to the integrity and effectiveness of law enforcement and public safety. In this case I have considered that there is substantial risk that disclosure may impede the future ability of Sussex Police to ensure that operational information is not disclosed which would give valuable information to potential offenders, helping them in any efforts to circumvent police strategies and tactics, thereby hampering the ability of the police to provide an effective service to the public.
PUBLIC INTEREST TEST;
When applying such qualified exemptions public authorities are also required to complete a public interest test that must take into account public interest in its widest sense in disclosing the information that has been requested.
Favouring Disclosure; There is of course a legitimate public interest in helping ensure accountability of the police service, contributing to the quality of public debate on policing issues. Disclosure might also help allay public concerns about the standards and quality of police performance.
Against Disclosure; There is a risk that the current or future law enforcement role of the force may be compromised by the disclosure of information relating to operational capabilities, contingency plans and procedures which would help potential offenders to circumvent police strategies and tactics, thereby increasing the likelihood of criminal offences being committed and hindering the police in their duty to prevent them.
BALANCING TEST;
Having taken all the above factors into account, I consider that the disclosure of the information covered by Section 31 is outweighed by the public interest in not disclosing it. It is important that the police service should be as open as possible, and indeed a wide variety of information is made publicly available about the way the service is structured, its general resources and responsibilities, through for example the websites and hard copy data available from the Sussex Police Authority, Sussex Police and various government departments with legislative responsibilities. However it is of crucial importance that police are able to make decisions about resourcing particular operations. For this reason on this occasion I am unable to provide you with the information on police numbers employed that particular operation.
This letter therefore serves as a refusal notice under the Act for the information not supplied
Yours sincerely,
T Mahony
Comments
Display the following 4 comments