FOI 492/25
REQUEST
All correspondence (including copies of any attachments to emails) sent and received - including on any workspace chat software such as the chat function on Microsoft Teams - between members of your team handling FOI requests and responses, and the National Police Chiefs' Council's (NPCC) Central Referral Unit (CRU), and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Central Referral Unit (CRU), relating to the FOI requests/requests for internal reviews of FOIs/ICO complaints referenced below.
Please also include any internal correspondence - including on any workspace chat software such as the chat function on Microsoft Teams - relating to the referral of FOI requests/requests for internal reviews of FOIs/ICO complaints to, as well as the advice received from, the National Police Chiefs' Council's (NPCC) Central Referral Unit (CRU) or the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Central Referral Unit (CRU), relating to the FOI requests/requests for internal reviews of FOIs/ICO complaints referenced below.
- FOI Request your reference number 243/18 and FOI Request for Internal Review your reference number 359/18 and CRU Log Number: 000636/18
RESPONSE
Please see attached document entitled ‘Emails redacted’ which includes all emails both internal and correspondence to the NPCC CRU relating to FOI requests 243/18 & 359/18.
Please note there was no referral made to the NPCC CRU in relation to the original FOI request 243/18.
Please also note in relation to internal correspondence on Microsoft Teams, South Wales Police did not use Microsoft Teams in 2018. In 2018 the force used Skype which has now been replaced with Microsoft Teams therefore we hold no internal correspondence from any workspace chat software in relation to these requests.
Please find the following attachments from the emails entitled:
- CRU FOI Referral FORM 359_18
- 152_18 response to send to s Wales internal review
- FC FOI Query
- FC FOI Query (002) v2
- Response 243_18
- Response data 243_18
- Response 359_18
In relation to the redacted information within the emails and the attachments the following exemption applies:
Section 40(2) - Personal Information
Section 40(2) is an absolute class-based exemption and therefore the authority is not required to consider the public interest in disclosure.
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 this part of your request.
Two documents attached to the requested emails have been considered for disclosure and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested. These documents relate to the numbers of officers deployed to Cardiff & Swansea football matches between the years 2012-2018.
In relation to this part of 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.
Whilst this information is historical data, the release of the numbers of police deployments over the years may reveal operational patterns or deployment trends. This insight could be used to predict future deployment levels, potentially undermining the effectiveness of policing operations to prevent crime. If this data was made public this may assist individuals 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. The disclosure of this information would help the public understand how large events are policed and provide reassurance around public safety measures.
Factors against Section 31
The disclosure of this information could compromise the operational effectiveness of policing of future events, this could lead to a risk on public safety. 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.