In accordance with section 1 (1) (b) of the Act our response is
provided below;
Please note: for ease I have numbered your questions
Question 1. There is one female sex offender registered within the
Western BCU. Western BCU includes Chester Outer & Inner,
Ellesmere Port, Western
Rural, Northwich and Winsford.
In relation to the specifics of your request, Chester and Ellesmere
Port, Cheshire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it
holds the information you requested as the duty at section 1 (1)(a)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of
the following exemptions to be found at sections S31(3) law
enforcement, S40(5) Personal Information, S38(2) Health and Safety
and S44(2) Exemption Provisions (specifically Human Rights Act
1998, Article 2 Right to Life and Article 8 Right to Respect for
Private and Family Life).
However this should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the
information you requested exits or does not exist.
Harm in Disclosure
The disclosure, publication, and subsequent discussion of
information relating to registered sex offenders is invariably, and
understandably, emotive due to the actual and perceived nature of
these crimes. On occasion, however, this strength of feeling has
escalated to such a degree that both Registered Sexual Offenders
(RSOs) and innocent persons have been targeted by those in our
society who feel it is appropriate to take vigilante style action.
For example, in January 2007 there were attacks on a home for
persons with learning disabilities in Havant, when misinformation
and rumour became so entrenched that some local people decided,
quite wrongly, that the individuals must be paedophiles. Similarly,
in 2004, crowds converged on a family home in the mistaken belief
that Maxine Carr was being housed there. The rumour had spread from
a discussion on an internet chat room. Information officially
released into the public domain, whether through FOI responses,
police media statements, court reporting or MAPPA reports, becomes
accessible and available for wide circulation in this way, and can
then be combined with local knowledge, supposition and rumour, with
a view to identifying offenders.
There has been a number of instances where unconnected and innocent
individuals have been incorrectly identified as Registered Sex
Offenders. For example, In April 2003, a national newspaper
accidentally published the picture of an unrelated individual
alongside the name of a registered sex offender. In July and August
2000, a number of individuals were the victims of vigilante attacks
following the publication of the names and photographs of convicted
sex offenders in a national newspaper. One individual, and his
family, were targeted because he was seen wearing a neck brace
similar to one worn by one of the offenders in the published photo.
He was misidentified despite the fact that the photograph had not
been taken recently, and the offender himself no longer wore a neck
brace. Other individuals were identified and targeted because their
names were the same as those of the published offenders. In those
cases the details published by the newspaper were correct, but the
published information was then misinterpreted by those who read the
newspaper. In each case, leaflets were distributed stating that the
individuals were paedophiles. In each case, police protection had
to be assigned to the individuals, and it was necessary for the
police to distribute their own leaflets to inform the public that
the rumours and accusations were not true. In these instances, the
distress and actual or potential physical harm caused by the
incorrect publication and the misidentification discussed above,
was acknowledged by the newspapers themselves, as they subsequently
paid damages to the individuals concerned.
The ease of communication afforded by the internet means that
published information and the genuine concerns of the public are
open to manipulation and exploitation by determined organisations.
This occurs on several extreme right-wing websites, which have
raised concerns following their publication of the personal details
of specified individuals who have subsequently been subjected to
violent attacks. Several of these sites feature visual images
depicting public hanging scenes, accompanied by inflammatory
language relating to paedophiles; one accompanies this imagery by
asking readers to contact them with information about local
convicted paedophiles. This evidences the fact that an active
intelligence gathering capability exists, where disclosed
information can be used to form a bigger picture by those intent on
causing harm.
A further consideration is the impact that disclosure would have on
those offenders who are currently in compliance with their
notification, and are therefore being managed by MAPPA partners.
There is evidence that previous disclosures in national newspapers
affected even those sex offenders who were not named in the
newspaper. In August 2000, a crowd gathered outside the house of,
and threatened, an individual accused of sex offences in
Manchester, although he himself was not one of the offenders whose
details had been published. The likely outcome of any disclosures
that contribute to the genuine or misplaced identification of
offenders is that damage will be caused to the relationship between
MAPPA monitored offenders and those that are entrusted with their
monitoring. There is a legal requirement for this supervision to
take place, and the system must effectively risk assess and monitor
offenders, and thus prevent them from re-offending. The breakdown
of the relationship between sexual offenders and the relevant
supervisors creates an environment where the loss of knowledge
about offenders can lead to a situation where sexual crimes are
committed in spite of proactive, preventative policing.
The harm identified above has been evaluated and evidenced after
consideration of points raised in a Decision Notice previously
issued by the Information Commissioner (FS50069091). In this
notice, the IC accepted that:
· Some individuals may seek to act illegally upon information which
tells them....who is an RSO.
· Irresponsible media coverage can agitate strong feelings within a
community and potentially drive an RSO "underground" or even
overseas.
· There is a likelihood of attacks on individuals where their names
and addresses and/or photographs are published.
· Prevalent unsubstantiated rumour or misunderstanding may lead to
attacks on individuals who are not RSOs.
A recent Scottish IC Decision (177/2007) also discussed the
possibility of registered sex offenders being subject to attack or
driven underground: "In my view such fears becoming a reality turns
on the likelihood of identification - if an individual cannot be
identified then they will not be at risk of attack or feel the need
to go to ground.
Despite this, any consideration of harm in the disclosure of the
requested information must also consider the fact that information
relating to missing sex offenders has already published on the CEOP
Most Wanted website. To date, the publication of offenders' details
on this site has been a success, with nine missing offenders
apprehended (of 14 published), and thus far, no occurrences of the
vigilante action discussed above. CEOP attribute this success to
the consistent application of a thorough process that underpins and
supports the controlled disclosure of offenders' details on this
website. This process can be summarised as follows:
1. Only high risk sexual offenders who have breached their
notification requirements in respect of sexual offences relating to
children are considered for publication. (The majority of missing
sexual offenders do not fit into this category.)
2. Prior to publication, a thorough and robust risk assessment is
conducted, which must take account of the rights and obligations of
all parties. Most importantly, the obligations of the police to
prevent crime and protect vulnerable children must be balanced
against the rights of the suspect and their families.
3. The website gives clear guidance on what to do, and what not to
do, if a member of the public identifies an offender.
4. Once an individual has been identified, a process is in place
for CEOP, police forces and MAPPA groups to engage to ensure that
the offender is dealt with appropriately.
In contrast to the process above, a response to an FOI request is
an unmanaged disclosure, where the public authority relinquishes
control of the dissemination of the information. In such a
circumstance, the process outlined above cannot be applied. In
addition, recipients of the information would be unaware of any
underlying investigation that may be taking place, and disclosure
could therefore compromise such operations as without the controls
noted above, it is highly likely that the publication of such
information would simply alert the offender, and cause them to move
on. The examples cited in this section have evidenced that errors
can and do occur when information is disclosed without appropriate
management.
Public Interest Test - Exemption Section 38 (2)
Factors Favouring Disclosure
The general arguments in favour of promoting transparency,
accountability and participation are evident.
Factors Favouring Non Disclosure
Public Safety - The Physical and Mental well being of both the
victims, offenders and those who would be mistaken as offenders
would be jeopardised.
Public Interest Test - Exemption Section 31 (3)
Factors Favouring Disclosure
Arguments in favour of promoting transparency, accountability and
participation is evident.
Factors Favouring Non Disclosure
Efficient and Effective Conduct of the Police Service - Where
current or future law enforcement of the force may be compromised
by the release of information. The effectiveness of current and
future strategies for dealing with individuals who commit sexual
offences may be compromised and undermine the prevention and
detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders
and the administration of justice. To disclose a number of sexual
offenders within a small area may encourage offenders to flee the
area to avoid publicity The duty on the police and other partners
to manage such offenders would be severely compromised which is
contrary to the greater interest of the public at large.
Human Rights Morals and Ethics - People have the right to a fair
trial and privacy and it would simply be unfair and morally wrong
to provide information relating to someone who has been processed
through the justice system. To disclose this information may result
in fuelling a further "trial by media".
In so far as sections 31(3), section 38(2) apply, the Cheshire
Constabulary has determined that in all the circumstances the
public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to neither
confirm nor deny outweighs the public interest in confirming
whether or not information is held.
Questions 2 & 3. None (for the period December 2008 to December
2009).