FOI 867/25

Request

Under the freedom of information act, I request the number of drivers being caught speeding by this camera (Western Avenue automatic speed camera) each week, ideally with a breakdown of those that are prosecuted driving in the range of 31mph – 40mph.

CLARIFICATION

Please could you share the data for a period of 52 weeks – 01/07/24 – 30/06/25

If this date range isn’t achievable, please reduce to the maximum period available, pre 30/04/2025.

Response

South Wales Police neither confirms nor denies that it holds information relevant to your request by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Section 38(2) Health and Safety

Sections 31(3) and 38(2) being prejudice based and qualified, the harm (prejudice) in confirming or denying should be evidenced, the public interest considered, and both articulated to the applicant. 

Evidence of Harm in complying with Section 1(1)(a) – to confirm or not whether information is or isn’t held

The public expect police forces and other law enforcement agencies to use all powers and tactics available to prevent and detect crime or disorder and maintain public safety. 

Freedom of Information is a disclosure to the world at large and disclosing the requested information would inform the public whether speeding on a specifically named road will result in a fine. It is widely known that safety cameras are not always active, but the police rely on the perception by drivers that camera housings, where overtly in situ, could contain active recording equipment – encouraging them to adjust their speed so as not to contract a fine.

To release information which would ultimately confirm a specific, overtly placed camera was not recording offences would diminish the effectiveness of that safety camera - undermining law enforcement and risking the health and safety of road users. It may also mean that an increased Police presence on that road would subsequently be required, which would put an unnecessary strain on resources.

Public Interest Considerations

Section 31 Law Enforcement

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming information is held

This would allow the public to be kept informed of the use of public funds.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) neither confirming nor denying that information is held

South Wales Police has a duty of care to the community at large and public safety is of paramount importance.  Confirming or denying this information is held would tell the public they can speed or commit other motoring offences in this area and they can do so with a significantly reduced fear of prosecution.

This would be extremely harmful to the prevention of crime and would likely serve to actually increase crime in some force areas.

Section 38 Health and Safety

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming information is held

Confirming whether information is or is not held would provide reassurance to the general public.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that information is held

Confirming or denying that information exists could lead to the loss of public confidence in South Wales Police. With more drivers aware that they can evade prosecution when speeding, and there will be an increased risk to the physical safety of road users. To reveal information via a Freedom of Information request which would place the safety of individuals in danger, is not in the public interest. 

Balancing Test

The points above highlight the merits of confirming, or denying, whether any information pertinent to this part of your request exists.  The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve.  The Police Service will never divulge whether or not information pertinent to this request does or does not exist, if to do so would place the safety of an individual(s) at risk and/or undermine the policing purpose in the effective delivery of operational law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, there is an even stronger public interest in safeguarding the health and safety of individuals. 

Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test for confirming, nor denying that information is held is appropriate.

No inference can be taken from this refusal that information does or does not exist.