FOI 666/25

Original FOI request (622/25)

 

I write to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. With respect to multimedia forensic processes, could you please provide me with a copy of the most recent Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), guidance documents, or policy documents held by your force. For clarity, by multimedia forensics I refer specifically to the forensic analysis, enhancement, authentication, interpretation, and presentation of audio, video, and still-image material. This does not include general digital forensics (such as the extraction of data from computers, mobile devices, or other storage media). I am solely concerned with processes dealing directly with audio, video, and image evidence. Specifically, please provide the material requested in the following four bullet points:

1. A copy of the SOPs, guidance documents, or policy documents covering the forensic processing, enhancement, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of audio, video, and image material for investigative or evidential purposes.
2. Any internal multimedia forensic workflows, protocols, or standard practices related to handling such material.
3. The names of software, tools, or systems used for these processes, including any associated training or operational guidance.
4. The quality assurance, validation, or review procedures used to ensure the accuracy, authenticity, and admissibility of multimedia forensic evidence. If the full SOPs or documents cannot be shared, I kindly request the following information in place of the SOP as per the following seven points:
5. A summary or description of the multimedia forensic processes followed.
6. SOP titles, version numbers, and the dates of their creation, last update, and validation/approval.
7. The roles, departments, or individuals responsible for authoring, validating, or approving the SOPs.
8. The legislation, policies, standards, or external guidance referenced during the development and/or review of the SOPs.
9. Whether the SOPs have undergone any ethical review or approval, and details of any such review processes or bodies involved.
10. Whether the SOPs have been externally validated, peer-reviewed, or accredited by any agency, professional body, or external organization.
11. Whether any SOPs are currently under review, have recently been amended, or are scheduled for updates, and the relevant timelines if applicable. In addition to the previous, please provide responses to the following four points regarding the use of emerging technologies:
12. Please detail whether your multimedia forensic unit currently uses or has trialled artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) tools for: o Authentication (e.g., detecting edits, deepfakes, or tampering) o Enhancement (e.g., audio/video/image quality improvement) o Analysis or interpretation (e.g., transcription, object recognition, pattern matching) Note: a simple response is acceptable here such as "Authentication: Use. Enhancement: Trialled. Analysis: Not used"
13. If applicable, the names or vendors of the AI/ML tools used.
14. Whether the use of these tools is governed by any SOPs, internal policies, or ethical guidelines.
15. Whether the adoption and use of AI/ML tools have been subject to ethical review, oversight, or risk assessment, and any details of such reviews or assessments.

Request for internal review 666/25

 

I am writing to formally appeal the refusal issued by Heddlu De Cymru in response to my Freedom of Information request referenced above.

 

I acknowledge that the request was refused under Section 12(1) of the FOIA on the grounds that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. However, I believe this refusal may be based on a misunderstanding of the scope of my original request.

 

In the most recent correspondence, the full detail of my original request does not appear to have been reflected. I would like to clarify that the information requested was not intended to be provided as a single, comprehensive package. Rather, certain elements were intended as supplementary, to be provided only in the event that the standard operating procedures (SOPs) were not available. This conditional structure seems to have been overlooked in the interpretation of the request.

 

Additionally, I note that comparable SOPs have been published by other police forces in England and Wales, such as the joint publication by Surrey and Sussex Police. This suggests that the information requested is not inherently exempt and can, in some cases, be made available within reasonable resource limits.

I therefore respectfully request a review of the original request and the refusal decision.

 

RESPONSE

 

Part VI of the Section 45 Code of Practice places a duty on public authorities to implement a complaints process to ensure that applicants are able to request an internal review if they are not content with an authority response.

 

An internal review has been conducted in a fair and impartial manner and I can provide our revised response below:

 

Questions 1-8

 

We consulted with our JSIU (Joint Scientific Investigation Unit) and following further assessment we have determined that in relation to questions 1-8 of your request the following exemption applies:

 

Section 14(1) – Vexatious Requests:

 

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious

 

Under S.14 (1) there is no requirement to conduct a public interest test and no requirement to provide any information or to confirm or deny whether the information is held.

 

I have taken cognisance of the Information Commissioners guidance on Vexatious requests which can be found at:

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/guidance_index/freedom_of_information_and_environmental_information.aspx

ICO guidance on the subject states:

 

‘Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious, they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme of circumstances.

 

In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request. The public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant.’

 

One of the indicators for identifying potentially vexatious requests is:

 

“Burden on the authority - The effort required to meet the request will be so grossly oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources, that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply, no matter how legitimate the subject matter or valid the intentions of the requester”

 

Accordingly, I have classified your request as vexatious under section 14(1).

 

Our evidence and considerations in applying S14, against this backdrop is as follows:

 

Firstly, Freedom of Information legislation is designed to provide opportunities whereby the public can shine a torch on the decision making and workings of a public authority. However, this does not mean that information has to automatically be disclosed. To do so without significant thought process would be reckless and, in this case, could lead to the disclosure of exempt information.

 

In relation to question 1 the JSIU confirmed they hold 41 documents consisting of 314 pages.

 

Each document would need to be manually reviewed with careful consideration with a view to identifying harm in disclosure and redacting the exempt information accordingly.  Any potentially exempt information cannot easily be isolated because it is scattered throughout the requested material.  The Freedom of Information team would have to carefully examine each incident to identify the harm, if any, and apply redactions accordingly.  The information would need to be reviewed by a member of the Freedom of Information Team so that the correct exemptions could be applied, and the public interest test carried out, where applicable. Furthermore, the information requested for questions 2-8 are held within the documents so further review would be needed to identify the relevant information to comply with these parts of your request.

 

It is impossible to quantify the length of time this task would take but we can safely say that it would be in excess of what could be reasonably expected to complete the initial review alone. It is not in the public interest to detract resources from a small team with a high workload whose main function is the core policing purpose of adhering to the Freedom of Information legislation. Such an abstraction would negatively affect this purpose.

I would also draw your attention to a decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner which dealt with the burdensome aspect of Section 14. This Decision Notice stated that although there was a weighty public interest in disclosure, the sheer volume of information meant that there was a ‘grossly oppressive burden’. 

 

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2015/1043411/fs_50561528.pdf

 

Question 9

 

None of the SOPs have undergone an ethical review/approval.

 

Question 10

 

Some of the process carried out the Imaging Unit have been accredited to the FSR Code, this would have involved the unit producing a validation report and supporting documents and submitting these to UKAS.

 

Question 11

 

SOPs are reviewed every 12 months as part of an internal audit, however they can be updated at any point by members of the Imaging Team by completing a Document Change Request, this must be signed by 2 members of the team.

 

Question 12-15

 

The Imaging Unit currently has no plans to trail or implement tools that are either AI/ML