From: FOI <FOI@dyfed-powys.pnn.police.uk
To: redacted Ed.
Sent: Wednesday, 8 August 2012, 10:37
Subject: FOI Request: 327/2012
Dear Redacted Ed.
Reference No: 327/2012
I write in connection with your requests for information dated the 18th June 2012 and received in the FOI Unit on the 19th June 2012 regarding information relating to Nick Griffin MEP.
These requests have been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Dyfed Powys Police Force can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the 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 24(2) National Security
Section 30(3) Investigations and Proceedings conducted by Public Authorities
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Section 40(5)(b)(i) Personal Information
Section 30 is a class-based qualified exemption which means the legislators have highlighted the need for public interest considerations to be evidenced with regard to ensuing neither confirming nor denying information exists is a suitable approach.
Section 40(5) Personal Information is an absolute, class-based exemption where the release of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Principles.
Section 31 and Section 24 are prejudiced-based and qualified which requires me to conduct a public interest test with regard to maintaining a neither confirm nor deny approach and evidence of the harm in confirming or denying the existence of information.
Overall Harm for neither confirming nor denying that any information relevant to the request is held
Whilst Dyfed Powys Police has confirmed that the force has investigated complaints concerning the BNP, this request specifically relates to named individuals; which is why the following response is appropriate.
The function of Special Branches has been and remains to this day to undertake covert work to acquire and develop intelligence to protect the public from threats to national security, especially terrorism and other extremist activity. Whilst this list of activities is not exhaustive, it can include animal rights matters, environmental extremism, anarchism, extreme left or right wing activities and political violence that poses a threat or potential threat to public order and lawful commerce. Key to this activity is recognised that a primary focus of Special Branch is to provide support for the work of security bodies and the government. This close working relationship is clearly outlined in Home Office guidelines issued in 2004 on Special Branch work and these state:
“In particular, Special Branches assist the security service in carrying out its statutory duties under the Security Services Act 1989 – namely the protection of national security and, in particular, protection against threats from terrorism, espionage, sabotage, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means. Special Branch also supports the work of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in carrying out its statutory duties in support of national security.”
To reveal who and when Dyfed Powys Police consults or shares intelligence with as part of any investigation would undermine our ability to protect national security. The security of the country is of paramount importance and the police service 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 those intent on committing crime, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in the highly sensitive area of serious terrorist related crime and disorder.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for Section 24:
The information simply relates to national security and disclosure would not actually harm it. The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent.
Factors against confirmation or denial for Section 24:
By confirming or denying any policing arrangements of this nature would render security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of on-going or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for Section 30:
Confirmation or denial that any information exists could provide satisfaction to the general public that investigations are conducted properly. In addition it could allow the public to make informed decisions about police procedures and the money spent in this business area.
Factors against confirmation or denial for Section 30:
The police service relies on information being supplied by the public as well as the public rely on information about or supplied by them is handled sensitively, confidentially and appropriately. Any disclosure which undermines this trust and confidence means it is likely that people will be less willing to come forward and provide information to the police, which will impact on our ability to detect and prevent crime. Therefore the Police Service will not disclose whether it has or hasn’t carried out an investigation in relation to named individuals unless that information is already in the public domain. Any disclosure under Freedom of Information is a release of information to the world in general and not an individual applicant. Therefore, by simply applying exemptions or stating no information held would confirm whether a force does or does not hold information relating to the request.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for Section 31:
By confirming or denying whether individuals are of interest to other intelligence agencies would enable the public to understand how the police service works and where public funds are being spent. Better public awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information being obtained from the public.
Factors against confirmation or denial for Section 31:
By confirming or denying whether individuals are of interest to other intelligence agencies would compromise law enforcement tactics and therefore hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime would be committed and individuals subsequently placed at further risk. Security arrangements and tactics are re-used and have been monitored by criminal groups in the past.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for Section 40:
Confirmation or denial of information sharing involving named individuals would enable the public to know who was being investigated and provide the public with reassurance that the Police were protecting their interests.
Factors against confirmation or denial for Section 40:
By confirming or denying any information sharing in respect of named individuals would contravene the First Principle of the Data Protection Act which states that personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and that a public authority must handle people’s personal data only in ways they would reasonably expect.
The Police Service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so would undermine law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively conducting any such investigations, these factors need to be weighed against the very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations. The police service relies heavily on the public providing information. The public have an expectation that any information they provide will be treated with confidence. Anything that puts that confidence at risk would have a serious detrimental effect on the police service.
To reveal who and when Dyfed Powys consults or shares intelligence with as part of any investigation would undermine their ability to protect national security. The security of the country is of paramount importance and the police service 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 those intent on committing crime, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in the highly sensitive area of serious terrorist related crime and disorder.
It is therefore the Dyfed Powys Police opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or not that information is held, is not made out.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that any information does or does not exist.
If you are unhappy with the way your request for information had been handled, you can request a review by writing to the freedom of information unit address supplied on the attached appeal process document.
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 0845 630 6060
Or: 01625 545745
There is no charge for making an appeal.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in Dyfed Powys and apologise for the delay in our response to you.
Swyddog Rhyddid Gwybodaeth – Freedom of Information Officer
Uned Rhyddid Gwybodaeth – Freedom of Information Unit
Pencadlys Heddlu – Dyfed-Powys Police Headquarters
Caerfyrddin – Carmarthen
Ffon/Tel: 0845 330 2000 est/ext 23444
Uniongyrchol/Direct Line : 01267 226596
e-bost/e-mail – email@example.com
Dyfed Powys Police provides you the right to request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure (copy enclosed). If you decide to request such a review and having followed the Force’s full process you are still dissatisfied, then you have the right to direct your comments to the Information Commissioner who will give it consideration.
A oeddech chi’n gwybod bod modd cyrchu gwybodaeth ynghylch Heddlu Dyfed Powys drwy Gynllun Cyhoeddi a Log Datgeliadau Heddlu Dyfed-Powys? Mae’r ddau ar gael drwy’r dolenni cyswllt isod:
Did you know you can access information about Dyfed Powys Police via the Dyfed Powys Police Publication Scheme and the Dyfed Powys Police Disclosure Log? Both are available via the below links:
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are not necessarily the view of Dyfed-Powys Police. It is intended only for the person or entity named above. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the originator and erase this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient or the employer or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, review, dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. This e-mail and any files transmitted within it have been checked for all known viruses. The recipient should still check the e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses, as Dyfed-Powys Police accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
DATGANIAD CYFRINACHEDD E BOST
Nid yw’r e-bost hwn nag unrhyw ffeiliau a drosglwyddir gydag ef o angenrheidrwydd yn adlewyrchu barn Heddlu Dyfed-Powys. Bwriedir yr e-bost ar gyfer y person neu’r sefydliad a enwir uchod. Os derbyniwyd yr e-bost hwn trwy gamgymeriad, dylid hysbysu’r anfonydd a dileu’r e-bost oddi ar eich system os gwelwch yn dda. Os na’i fwriadwyd ar eich cyfer chi ac nid chi yw’r cyflogwr na’r asiant sy’n gyfrifol am roi’r e-bost i’r derbynnydd bwriadedig, fe’ch hysbysir gan hyn na chaniateir i chi ddefnyddio, adolygu, lledaenu, dosbarthu na chopio’r e-bost ar unrhyw gyfrif. Archwiliwyd yr e-bost hwn ac unrhyw ffeiliau a drosglwyddir gydag ef am firws. Serch hynny, dylai’r derbynnydd hefyd archwilio’r e-bost a’r ffeiliau sydd ynghlwm am firws oherwydd nid yw Heddlu Dyfed Powys yn derbyn cyfrifoldeb am unrhyw ddifrod a achosir gan unrhyw firws a drosglwyddir trwy gyfrwng yr e-bost hwn.
Dyfed Powys Police – the lowest levels of recorded crime and highest total detection rate across the whole of England and Wales.
|The establishment always dump on their useful idiots, when they are no longer useful, I’ll wager a pound to a penny, that Nicholas John Griffin is shitting his pants now, aren’t you Nick? They have hung you out to dry, so to speak. 🙂|