In accordance with section 1(1) (b) of the Act our response is
provided below;
Please see the attached excel document.
Young People Charged under SOA
Please note the following: The data only goes back as far as March
2005. We are unable to provide conviction data as this is only held
on the Police National Computer, and is accessible only by
searching on individual names. It is not capable of producing
statistical information at local force level.
In addition to the information provided above the Cheshire
Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any further
information relating to any ongoing national and local operations
in respect of offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by virtue
of Section 23(5) Information Supplied by or Relating to Exempt
Bodies; Section 30(3) Investigations; Section 31(3) Law
Enforcement; Section 38(2) Health and Safety; Section 40(5)
Personal Information and Section 44(2) Prohibitions on
Disclosure.
S23 is a class-based absolute exemption and as such there is no
requirement in the Act to assess the prejudice that could be caused
by disclosure, nor any requirement to consider the public interest
in disclosure. It is also the case that it applies regardless of
the effect, specific or general, of the disclosure in question.
S30 is a class based qualified exemption. There is no
requirement to assess the prejudice in disclosure however we have
to consider the public interest.
S31 is a prejudiced based qualified exemption and as such
evidence of any prejudice (harm) that could be caused by disclosure
needs to be documented as well as considering the public interest
as follows:
Operation Ore is an ongoing nationwide investigation. The
provision of the information requested will establish whether or
not the operation is still active. To disclose this information at
that level will enable an offender to geographically map throughout
the force which areas are currently being targeted.
This could result in a suspect taking measures to try and
cover-up criminal activities by destroying evidence. Steps could
also be taken by suspects to avoid arrest and/or interview if the
Police were still investigating as well as carrying out more
offences in areas that are not.
If the information were disclosed at this level it would set a
precedent for the information to be disclosed by other forces at
lower levels and as such offenders could then geographically map
across the whole country 'safe' areas to target.
In either case we will not be providing information through FOI
which jeopardises a current investigation by potentially assisting
offenders or even causing more crime.
Public Interest Test
Considerations Favouring Disclosure
Accountability
When information disclosed relates directly to the efficiency
and effectiveness of the force or its officers it is generally of
benefit to the community. In this case, the release of information
will enable the public to have a better understanding of the
efficiency and effectiveness of the police service. There is also a
public interest in releasing information that demonstrates the use
of police resources.
Public Debate
Operation Ore has been subject to much media coverage since its
inception. Awareness of the exact progress made locally would
assist in a more informed and accurate public debate.
Public Awareness
The subject of this request is an area of general concern to the
public. Release of information about this issue will enhance
informed debate on this subject.
Considerations Favouring Non-disclosure
Ongoing Investigations
It is the Association of Chief Police Officers approach that
information relating to an investigation will rarely be disclosed
under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Whilst such
information may be released if it provides a tangible community
benefit, for example to prevent or detect crime or to protect life
or property, it is hard to see how the information here will do
so.
In this case, disclosure of statistics which relate to an ongoing
operation, as evidenced within the harm, could compromise any
current or future criminal proceedings. This could result in an
individual not being brought to justice and made responsible for
his actions through the courts, or even cause more crime as
suspects begin re-offending.
Efficient and Effective Conduct of the Service
Where current or future law enforcement role of the force may be
compromised by the release of information. In this case, for the
reasons outlined, the information requested could jeopardise future
police operations and compromise the prevention and detection of
crime.
Public Safety
There may be occasions where the release of information relating
to public safety may not be in the public interest. Public safety
is of paramount importance to the police service and must be
considered in respect of every release. In this case, information
that potentially thwarts an investigation or causes more crime will
adversely affect public safety.
Interests of Third Parties
Although the request does not ask for personal data the
interests of third parties, i.e. victims, could still be
jeopardised by the release of information that could lead to their
identification.
Flow of Information to the Service
Releasing this information could act as a deterrent for some
members of the public to come forward and provide information in
such cases. This could impede the relationship of trust between the
police force and such individuals and will also make it more
difficult for the force to detect and prevent crime.
Exemption Provisions
Where multiple exemptions apply to a piece of information, this
would favour non-disclosure. In this case three class based
absolute exemptions, one class based qualified exemption and two
prejudiced based qualified exemptions.
Balancing Test
When balancing the public interest test we have to consider
whether the information should be released into the public domain.
Arguments need to be weighed against each other. The most
persuasive reason for disclosure is Accountability which needs to
be compared to the strongest negative reason, which in this case is
Ongoing Investigations. It can be argued that statistical data such
as that requested has been previously disclosed. Although that is
true, that has been at a national level. The provision at this
higher level has the effect of dramatically reducing the harm. In
this case the information will cause the harm that has been
outlined solely because it is at a lower level.
Also, as was firmly established at the Information Tribunal case
of the Guardian Newspaper versus the Information Commissioner and
the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, the public interest in
disclosure of information which is exempt by virtue of a qualified
exemption, is not justified just because it is what interests the
public. Disclosure requires it to be in the public interest, in
that there must be some tangible benefit to the community. There is
no evidence in this case to suggest that this is achieved by the
provision of the statistics requested.