FOI 431/26
Request
- Policies, procedures, and guidance
- Fraud by Abuse of Position investigation guidance
- Vulnerable adult safeguarding procedures
- Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) guidance used at the time
- Procedures for sourcing an Appropriate Adult
- Procedures for interviewing vulnerable adults with dementia
- VRR policy and internal guidance
- PSD complaint handling procedures
- Decision making frameworks
Templates, checklists, or forms used when deciding whether to:
- interview a vulnerable adult
- conduct an ABE interview
- obtain a capacity assessment
- escalate to a supervisor
- refer to safeguarding
- refer to CPS
- reopen an NFA case
- Case handling timelines and performance standards
Expected timescales for:
- interviewing victims
- interviewing suspects
- obtaining third party evidence
- progressing vulnerable adult financial abuse cases
- Correspondence dispatch logs
Administrative records showing:
- dates VRR responses were generated
- dates PSD responses were generated
- dates letters were posted or re sent
- any records of returned or undelivered mail
- Internal review and oversight processes
Policies governing:
- escalation to supervisors
- reassignment of cases
- conflict of interest in post VRR reviews
- when an officer may or may not review their own investigation
- Training and accreditation requirements
Training required for:
- investigating financial abuse of vulnerable adults
- ABE interviewing
- handling cases involving dementia
- safeguarding referrals
- OPG liaison procedures
- SWP policy on liaising with the Office of the Public Guardian
- Guidance on whether investigations should pause pending OPG responses
- Any memoranda of understanding (MoUs) between SWP and OPG
Clarification
VRR = Victim Right to Review
I am seeking clear information and clarification on South Wales Police policy and procedure regarding circumstances in which an Officer in Case (OIC) may review or be tasked with progressing an investigation where they previously failed to obtain key evidence.
This request relates specifically to situations where:
- A Victim Right to Review (VRR) has taken place;
- New, material evidence is subsequently submitted which the original OIC had previously failed to obtain; and
- That new evidence is then returned to the same OIC to review and/or progress the case.
To assist clarity, please provide the following information:
- Policy on officers reviewing their own investigations
- Does South Wales Police have any written policy, procedure, or guidance governing whether an OIC may review their own investigation after a VRR has been completed?
- Please provide the relevant policy or section.
-
- Policy on officers progressing cases involving their own investigative omissions
- Does South Wales Police have any policy or guidance on whether an OIC may be tasked with progressing a case based on evidence they themselves previously failed to obtain?
- If so, please provide the relevant policy or section.
- Conflict of interest and independence
- Does South Wales Police have any policy addressing potential conflicts of interest where an officer is asked to review or progress new evidence relating to their own earlier investigative omissions?
- Please provide any relevant policy or guidance.
- Requirement for independent review
- In what circumstances is an investigation required to be reviewed or progressed by a different officer or supervisor rather than the original OIC?
- Please provide any policy, guidance, or criteria used to determine this.
- Handling of new evidence submitted post VRR
- Does South Wales Police have any policy or guidance on how new evidence submitted after a VRR decision must be handled?
- Specifically, is it permitted for the same OIC to reassess or progress evidence they previously failed to obtain?
- Supervisory oversight
- Please provide any policy or guidance relating to supervisory responsibility for ensuring that post VRR evidence is reviewed independently and appropriately.
Response
South Wales Police (SWP) do hold some information in relation to this request.
We have consulted with our Justice Services Department, Strategic Public Protection Department, Professional Standards Department and Learning and Development Services Team.
Question 1a
No information held. There is an overarching Fraud & Economic Crime Policy, but this does not provide specific guidance to different fraud offences. There is no specific guidance within the organisation in relation to Fraud by Abuse of Position, but the Economic Crime Team are available and do provide advice and guidance as and when required relating to all types of fraud.
Question 1b – 1e
- Please see attached document ‘Adults At Risk Policy – Redacted2(004)_Redacted’.
In relation to the redacted information, the following exemptions apply:
Section 31(1) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2) - Personal Information
Section 31(1) Law Enforcement
Section 31(1) is a qualified, prejudice-based exemption and the legislators accept that there may be harm if released. The authority is therefore required to articulate the harm that may be caused and consider the public interest arguments for and against the disclosure of the information.
Section 40(2) is an absolute class-based exemption and therefore the authority is not required to consider the public interest in disclosure.
Overall Harm
A disclosure in response to a Freedom of Information request is not a disclosure to the individual applicant but a release into the public domain. It is important that a Police Force safeguards its effective and efficient service and does not disclose information that could undermine that.
Disclosure of the requested information would reveal our tactical capabilities and compromise the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This would hinder future investigations by assisting those who are intent on undertaking criminal activity.
Factors favouring disclosure
By disclosing the requested information, this would provide openness and transparency and better awareness to the public.
Factors against disclosure
The security of the public is of paramount importance, and the Police Service will not divulge information if to do so could compromise law enforcement.
Balance Test
Whilst there is public interest in police transparency, there is stronger public interest in safeguarding information which could assist those who wish to disrupt the police service.
Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test lies in favour of withholding the information.
In accordance with the Act, this letter acts as a refusal notice for this part of your request.
Section 40(2) Personal Information
The Data Protection Act covers processing of personal data about a living individual. Personal data means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified-
- from those data, or
- from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual.
Information will “relate to” a person if it is about them, linked to them, has some biographical significance for them, is used to inform decisions affecting them, has them as its main focus or impacts on them in any way.
If we disclosed these details, this would provide significant detail which could identify an individual and would breach the first principle of the Data Protection Act 2018.
In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a refusal notice for your request.
Question 1f
SWP follow the guidance set out by the NPCC (National Police Chiefs Council). As this is available in the public domain, we are therefore not obliged to provide this information as the following exemption applies:
Section 21 – Information Accessible by Other Means.
This is an absolute, class-based exemption which means that a public authority is not required to consider the public interest in disclosure.
Under Section 16, the duty to provide advice and assistance, please see the below link:
Internal guidance is provided to officers ensure accurate recording and process management via SWP case management systems
The criteria within the guidance is duplicated publicly on the SWP webpage: Victims' Right to Review Scheme | South Wales Police
Internal guidance outlines the process for VRR as per the map below:
In addition to the process maps, the guidance outlines the responsibility of Justice Services department to record the receipt of the VRR on the case management system and the responsibility of the reviewer to respond within six weeks of the request. There the request for VRR does not meet the criteria, the request will be recorded and a response sent to the victim within 10 working days.
Question 1g
This would be covered by the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) statutory guidance on the police complaints system which is published on the IOPC website. As this is available in the public domain, we are therefore not obliged to provide this information as the following exemption applies:
Section 21 – Information Accessible by Other Means.
This is an absolute, class-based exemption which means that a public authority is not required to consider the public interest in disclosure.
Under Section 16, the duty to provide advice and assistance, please see the below link:
We are the Independent Office for Police Conduct | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
2a and 2c
In relation to your request the following exemption applies:
Section 31 (1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 31 is a qualified, prejudice-based exemption and the legislators accept that there may be harm if released. The authority is therefore required to articulate the harm that may be caused and consider the public interest arguments for and against the disclosure of the information.
Overall Harm
A disclosure in response to a Freedom of Information request is not a disclosure to the individual applicant but a release into the public domain. It is important that a Police Force safeguards its effective and efficient service and does not disclose information that could undermine that.
Disclosure of the requested information would reveal our tactical capabilities and compromise the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This would hinder future investigations by assisting those who are intent on undertaking criminal activity.
Factors favouring Section 31
By disclosing the requested information, this would provide openness and transparency and better awareness to the public.
Factors against Section 31
The security of the public is of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge information if to do so could compromise law enforcement.
Balance Test
Whilst there is public interest in police transparency, there is stronger public interest in safeguarding information which could assist those who wish to disrupt the police service.
Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test lies in favour of withholding the information.
In accordance with the Act, this letter acts as a refusal notice for this part of your request.
Question 2b
As this is available in the public domain, we are therefore not obliged to provide this information as the following exemption applies:
Section 21 – Information Accessible by Other Means.
This is an absolute, class-based exemption which means that a public authority is not required to consider the public interest in disclosure.
Under Section 16, the duty to provide advice and assistance, please see the below link
Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings - GOV.UK
Question 2d
Please see response for question 13.
Question 2e
The case must be reviewed on an individual basis and assessment case by case in relation to whether the evidential stage and public interest stage within the full code test are met. These details are available publicly on the CPS webpage.
Question 2f
Internally, within SWP, in terms of the VRR process the template used added to the case management system (same template as above)
Internally, within SWP, in terms of the VRR process the template added to the case management system:
Victim Right to Review (VRR03) - Reviewing Officers Report
URN:
Original Officer in the Case (OIC):
Officer completing the VRR Review:
Offence(s) for which the NFA decision was given:
Who is the Charging Authority?:
Guidance for Reviewers:
Reviewing Officers should read the ACPO guidance on VRR before carrying out the review. ()
This template should be used to clearly record the outcome of the review with as much detail as necessary to explain whether the case: 1. Meets the criteria for police charging decision or2. Meets the criteria for referral to CPS for a charging decision or3. Meets the criteria for further investigation or4. The original NFA decision is upheld
Review Details (Summary and Key findings):
Key Issues:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Record the Outcome of the Full Code Test (if applicable)
I have decided that the Full Code Test evidential standard: Is not met but should be re-applied following further investigation
My reasons for making this decision are: A comprehensive update added to OEL
I therefore consider that currently: There is sufficient evidence available to provide a realistic prospect of conviction
Local/Public Interest:
I have considered whether there are any local/public interest matters in this case and believe that it should: Proceed to prosecution
My reasons for making the above decision are: A comprehensive update added to OEL
Further Observations and Conclusion:
Final Outcome of the Review:
Generate an Outcome Letter to send to the Victim:
Question 3a-d
There is no specific timescales for the points outlined above which should be determined on a case-by-case basis due to varying needs of the individuals concerned and the statutory requirements of the investigation.
This also applies to financial abuse cases, the timescales will vary depending on the route of the fraud into the organisation i.e. a report received from Report Fraud may result in a longer timescale than a Call for Service where the organisation will act immediately to the report although this will not always result in an investigation and there is no obligation on the Force to undertake any further investigation, other than assisting, if appropriate, with reporting the allegation to Action Fraud and safeguarding the vulnerable person.
The Victims’ Code for Policing, published by the College of Policing, sets out the statutory rights of victims and the minimum standards of service they should expect from policing. This guidance underpins all victim engagement and ensures officers and staff deliver a consistent, victim focused service in line with national expectations.
Question 4
In relation to this part of your request, SWP can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you have requested. In this case, the duty to confirm or deny under S1(1)(a) does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption:
Section 40(5) – Personal Information
The Freedom of Information Act is a public disclosure regime and the duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt under Section 40 of the Act.
Where either a request is made by an applicant requesting their own personal information or a request for information relates to third parties (anybody other than the data subject), absolute exemptions exists and as such there is no requirement for SWP to carry out a public interest test.
In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this request.
This should not be taken as confirmation that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.
The Data Protection Act 2018 (which incorporates the General Data Protection Regulation and Law Enforcement Directive) allows an individual to access information concerning himself/herself, subject to certain exemptions.
In this force, such requests are administered on receipt of a Subject Access application form. You can make a Subject Access Request through the below link:
Question 5
We have answered the questions that were sent in as part of the clarification for this part of your request. Please see responses later in this document.
Question 6
The training mentioned here is covered in the Specialist Sexual Assault Investigators Development Programme (SAAIDP) and a number of College of Learn online training programmes.
SWP are licensed by the College of Policy to deliver this training and details of the programmes can be obtained from the College of Policing
Question 7
Information sharing is done so on a case-by-case basis. There is no specific policy or MOU.
Question 8
SWP follow the guidance set out by the NPCC which is publicly available on the NPCC webpage: 342-2024-npcc---victims-right-to-review-guidance-2022-with-changes-highlighted.pdf
The VRR review will be conducted by an officer a rank above that of the decision maker (or equivalent staff member) – paragraph 7.1
Question 9
SWP follow the guidance set out by the NPCC which is publicly available on the NPCC webpage: 342-2024-npcc---victims-right-to-review-guidance-2022-with-changes-highlighted.pdf . This decision is made on a case-by-case basis. Paragraph 9.5
Question 10
As above, SWP will follow the NPCC guidelines. The review will be carried out by an officer at least one rank above the decision maker or police staff equivalent
Question 11
The Incident and Occurrence Management Policy provide clear guidance on responsibilities for incident attendance, allocation, ownership, and transfer of ownership, as well as ongoing occurrence investigation and management.
It ensures a consistent approach to occurrence allocation, investigation, and finalisation, aligned with the organisation’s mission to prevent and detect crime, protect and serve communities, and deliver a first class service to victims.
The policy outlines key principles and responsibilities for officers and staff but does not prescribe how specific crime types should be investigated. Its aim is to ensure a consistent, structured approach to allocating, investigating, and managing crimes.
The policy is generic, meaning it sets overarching standards rather than specific investigative methods for different crime types.
It aligns with the organisation’s mission and Delivery Plan 2025–2029, focusing on:
o Preventing and detecting crime
o Protecting and reassuring communities
o Delivering a high-quality service to victims
Ultimately, it is designed to support effective investigations and achieve the best possible outcomes for victims
The policy does not contain specific guidance on Victims Right to Review, the NPCC guidance referred to above is followed.
Question 12
SWP following the guidelines set out by NPCC as outlined above. There is no separate policy or guidance regarding how new evidence arising from a VRR is submitted although, if no further action is the proposed outcome, the matter will be brought back to the VRR reviewing officer for determination (para 9.6).
Question 13
The Supervisor Review Guidance Template (please see attached document ‘Supervisory Review Guidance (2)’) provides a structured framework to support effective supervisory oversight of investigations. It enables supervisors to ensure investigative activity is proportionate, victim centred, evidentially sound, and compliant with policy and statutory requirements. The template supports consistent supervision and clear accountability throughout the life of an investigation