FOI 760/25

REQUEST

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relating to the handling of stalking and harassment cases by your police force. This request focuses on potential misidentification of victims, the use and misuse of Community Resolutions, and the treatment of individuals with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

________________________________________

🔹 Part 1 – Misidentification and Arrest of Victims

1. Between 2018 and 2024, how many individuals were:

1. Arrested on suspicion of stalking or harassment.
2. Later identified as the victim rather than the perpetrator.

2. Of those cases, please provide any available breakdown by:

1. Gender (with particular focus on women where misogyny may have played a role).
2. Sexual orientation (including cases involving homophobic abuse).
3. Disability or mental health conditions (e.g., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, autism spectrum, anxiety disorders).
4. Race/ethnicity.
5. Any recorded intersectional vulnerabilities, where multiple protected characteristics may be relevant.

3. Of those misidentified and arrested:

1. How many were detained in custody.
2. How many were released without charge.
3. How many resulted in no further action.

4. Are there any internal reviews, case audits, guidance, or training materials regarding:

1. Misidentification of victims in stalking/harassment or domestic abuse incidents.
2. Mistaken arrests involving individuals with protected characteristics.
3. Handling of cases involving vulnerable or marginalised individuals.

________________________________________

🔹 Part 2 – Use and Misuse of Community Resolutions (CRs)

5. Between 2018 and 2024, how many Community Resolutions were issued for: (b) Harassment. 
   6. Of these, please specify how many involved individuals with the following protected characteristics:

    

   1. Mental health conditions.
   2.  
   3. Gender (female-identifying individuals).
   4. Sexual orientation (including LGBTQ+).
   5. Race/ethnicity.

    

   7. In how many cases:

    

   1. Was the alleged victim not informed of the CR before it was applied?
   2. Was the CR applied without the victim's consent or knowledge?
   3. Were individuals led to believe the CR constituted mutual agreement or offered protective benefit, when that was inaccurate?

    

   8. Are there any internal reviews, complaint investigations, IOPC referrals, or safeguarding concerns documented about:

    

   1. Inappropriate or non-consensual use of Community Resolutions.
   2. Use of CRs in stalking or harassment cases involving vulnerable groups.
   3. Misleading representations of CRs to victims or those misidentified as perpetrators.

    

   RESPONSE

    

   Question 1b

    

   Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested.    

    

   Section 17(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires South Wales 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.

    

   In relation to your particular request, the following exemption applies:

    

   Section 12 – Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit.

    

   We have consulted with our Safeguarding and Public Protection Department who have provided the below response.

    

   There were 7,706 arrests relating to stalking and harassment and in order to ascertain if the individual was later identified as the victim rather than the perpetrator, we would be required to individually interrogate each occurrence on our crime and incident recording system (Niche RMS).

   We estimate that this would take approximately 3 – 5 minutes per occurrence and therefore estimate that it would take in excess of 385 hours to answer question 1b of your request.

    

   It is estimated that the cost of providing you with the 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.

    

   In the case of the police service, the appropriate limit is £450 which has been calculated to equate to a total of 18 hours of work.

    

   If any part of the request exceeds the fees limit then Section 12 applies to the whole request.

    

   In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a refusal notice.

    

   Excess cost removes the forces obligation under the Freedom of Information Act, however under Section 16 – Duty to provide advice and assistance, an authority is required to offer an applicant the opportunity to redefine their request within the cost limit. If you were to remove question 1b, we may be able to assist with the rest of your request.