Computer Misuse

Under Freedom of Information laws, please can you provide me with details about police officers and staff who have been investigated for computer misuse.
Please provide full details of cases from January 1 2005 to present. Within this, please include:
1) The date of the alleged offence and the date it was settled / dealt with
2) The nature of the alleged misuse - eg excessive internet useage, looking at inappropriate material, use of social networking websites, installing forbidden software etc
3) The position held by the employee - officer rank or deparment if a police civilian
4) Was the case upheld and details of any disciplinary action taken
5) A copy of the report if one was produced (please redact names in accordance with Data Protection laws)

In accordance with section 1(1) (b) of the Act our response is provided below;

In respect of Questions 1 to 4 please see the attached Excel sheet:

Computer Misuse FOI 2184

In respect of Question 5. Reports: We have now considered this part of your request and we are not obliged to supply the information requested.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the Cheshire Constabulary, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you 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.

Reasons for the decision.

This information is exempt by virtue of the following sections:

Section 40(2) Personal data
Section 30 (1) (a) (b) & (c) Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities..

Section 40 Personal data of third parties is exempt if disclosure would breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998. In such circumstances this is also an absolute exemption.

Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if -

(a) it constitutes personal data which does not fall within subsection (1), and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied>
(3) The first condition is:-
(a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene:-
(i) any of the data protection principles, or
(ii) section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress), and
(b) in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (which relates to manual data held by public authorities) were disregarded.
(4) The second condition is that by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the Data Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7(1)(c) of that Act (data subject's right of access to personal data). The information you have requested is the personal data of third parties and to release personal data would breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 and would be unlawful (S40).
Section 30 (1) (a) (b) & (c) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of
a) Any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained (i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,
(b) Any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which
the authority had the power to conduct, or
(c) Any criminal proceedings, which the authority has the power to conduct.

The information you are requesting clearly falls into the above categories it being both the personal data of the members of staff who were investigated and held for the purposes of investigations falling into section 30 (1) as above.

In so far as section 30 is concerned, it can only be applied after consideration of the public interest.
We have considered the following:
There are the general arguments of accountability, public awareness and debate, 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 exposure of the quality of the police investigation, as regards thoroughness, vigilance and transparency. There is also a public interest in releasing information that demonstrates the use of police resources.
Also in this case the release of information will enable public to have a better general awareness of issues that may affect the community and could enhance public debate by demonstrating to the community that the Police Service will rigorously and independently investigate any internal allegations in an efficient, effective and professional manner. Furthermore, disclosure would highlight that "internal investigations" are dealt with appropriately by the force and action taken where necessary.
Improper Actions of Public Officials
Disclosure of information relating to the abuse of office where public officials have used their office improperly. In this case, disclosure would evidence the outcome of an independent investigation into the misuse of our Force computer systems.

Considerations Favouring Non-disclosure

Investigations
Releasing the information raises concerns that individuals with relevant evidence may be reluctant to cooperate with our Professional Standards Officers if their names and their comments are routinely released to the public upon request.

Efficient and effective Conduct of the Service
Revealing exact details of how the investigation was undertaken in particular evidence gathering techniques could in general terms provide potential criminals with information that they maybe able to use to their advantage, thus reducing the force's ability to prevent and detect crime. In this case in particular the methods used to detects unlawful access/use of the Force computer systems would be highlighted thus enabling those intent on misuse to avoid detection

Fair treatment of an individual
There can be public interest in non-disclosure of information that adversely affects the reputation of an individual. In this case where individuals have been subjected to a thorough internal investigation, brought to account by that process and dealt with proportionately and fairly. To further publish those investigations would clearly be disproportionate and simply unfair.

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.
It can be argued that this information should be in the public domain as the police service is a public organisation and the public has the right to view all information regarding internal investigations which could impact on the community and do. Although true, in this case there is an absolute exemptions which would mean the majority of the reports would be redacted before we even consider the qualified exemptions. We have already disclosed in this response information in sufficient detail to answer fully all of the questions, bar one. In doing so we have taken into account all of the considerations outlined above whilst maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of both the persons involved and the investigations themselves.

In this case the release of information would not be for a "core policing purpose" - to prevent or detect crime or to protect life or property. There is not a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure. The information being requested could be disclosed only with removing the details of the investigation and evidence gathering itself which would affect the above activities and the removal of all third party data. I consider that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.