In accordance with section 1(1) (b) of the Act our response is
provided below;
- Three
- One
- I have now considered your request for this information
contained within this question and I am no obliged to supply the
information.
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.
The information is exempt in accordance with Section 31(1) (a)
(b) (c) Law Enforcement.
I consider that this information could reveal this forces
knowledge of grooming activities on the internet and specific sites
that could be useful to organised crime groups and others. This may
appear to be only be slightly harmful at us an an individual force
but given that you sent this same request to other UK forces, the
combined value of this information is much greater. The information
from all forces will allow those so minded to construct an analysis
of web sites most likely to be investigated which could prompt
people to use other sites for grooming activities. This makes
detection of offences more difficult and also places children at
risk if it is easier for offenders to commit these offences.
In support of this mosaic effect, I would refer to ICO Decision
Notice FS50142321 – a request seeking details of seizures of
contraband at Bristol Airport and Avonmouth and Portbury Docks. The
arguments regarding the cumulative effects of adding together small
pieces of information in that case reflect the concerns about these
questions.
If we reveal all of the websites we have or have not
investigated, by default this will identify those that we have had
no dealings with making them more attractive to predators. To
disclose websites of current investigations would alert those under
investigation enabling them to change their behaviour or destroy
evidence. Although it can be argued that the top social networking
sites are common knowledge it is the myriad of other internet
portals that children can assess that are the issue.
Public Interest Test
For
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing
and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve and
there is a public interest in the transparency of policing
operations to ensure investigations are conducted
appropriately.
It could be argued that it is in the public interest that people
are made aware of the web sites that sex offenders are using for
grooming activities so that additional steps could be made to
protect their children on those sites.
Against
Disclosure could hinder the prevention or detection of crime as
it would reveal to the criminal fraternity information which could
be used to their advantage. It could also undermine the partnership
approach to law enforcement where other agencies are aware of
information that is passed to the Police.
Balance
The public have already a wealth of knowledge about the dangers
of unsupervised online activity via official government campaigns,
the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and publicity
by such groups as the NSPCC. Also there is exposure by commercial
concerns who provide products to assist in this online protection.
This would seem to negate somewhat the benefits of having knowledge
of certain websites when the reality is that any website which
allows interaction between people could possibly be used for this
unlawful purpose. There is also the fact that any disclosure which
makes policing the activities of online groomers more difficult
means that we are placing children at risk. This is not something
the police service is prepared to do.
In addition to the above the Cheshire Constabulary can
neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information in
relation to your request with regard to individuals suspected of
committing an offence under Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act
where the Cheshire Constabulary was advised of suspicious activity
on the internet, as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following
exemptions:
- Section 23(5) Information Supplied by, or concerning,
certain Security Bodies
- Section 30(3) Investigations
- Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
- Section 38(2) Health and Safety
- Section 40(5) Personal Information
- Section 44(2) Prohibitions on Disclosure
Sections 23, and 44 are class based absolute exemptions and
there is no requirement to consider the public interest test in
this area.
Section 23 is engaged as your request may relate to information
obtained by or relating to the Child Exploitation Online Protection
Agency, who are an exempt body under Freedom of Information
legislation. The engagement of this exemption is not an inference
that such information is or is not held.
Section 30 and 40 are class based qualified exemptions and
consideration must be given as to whether there is a public
interest in neither confirming nor denying the information exists
is the appropriate response.
With Sections 31 and 38 being prejudice based qualified
exemptions there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would
be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well
as carrying out a public interest test.
Harm in Confirming or Denying that the Information is held
Disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act are disclosures
to the world, not just to the individual making the request. To
confirm that any further information relating to suspects
identified by internet use potentially committing offences under
Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act is held, even if that
information was exempted, or to confirm no information is held,
would provide intelligence to criminals about the status of police
investigations and intelligence.
Public Interest Considerations
Section 30 and Section 31
Factors favouring Confirmation or Denial
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing
and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve and
there is a public interest in the transparency of policing
operations to ensure investigations are conducted
appropriately.
Modern-day policing is intelligence led and the Police Service
share information with other law enforcement agencies as part of
their intelligence gathering process. To confirm or not whether
information is held would hinder the prevention and detection of
crime and undermine the partnership approach to investigations and
law enforcement.
Section 38
Factors favouring Confirmation or Denial
Confirmation as to whether the information is or isn’t held
could provide a better awareness to the general public that the use
of police funds is being dealt with appropriately.
Factors favouring Not Confirming or Denying
The Police Service will never confirm whether or not information
is held if to do so could jeopardise the risk of an individual or
undermine public confidence in Cheshire Constabulary's ability to
protect the well-being of the community.
Section 40
Factor favouring confirmation or denial for
S40
Confirmation or denial of sites used by sex offenders for
grooming children would enable the public to have better knowledge
of whether information was known about individuals and therefore
better understand the decision making process when it comes to the
disclosure of personal details.
Factors against confirmation or denial for
S40
By confirming or denying whether individuals are using sites for
grooming children would contravene the First Principle of the Data
Protection Act which states that personal data shall be processed
fairly and lawfully and that a public authority must handle
people’s personal data only in ways they would reasonable
expect.
Balancing Test
Irrespectively of whether information is or isn’t held, public
safety and the ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of
paramount importance to the Police Service. Confirmation or denial
of whether information is held would undoubtedly compromise both
law enforcement and health of safety of an individual. Therefore,
at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the
balancing test for confirming whether or not any other information
is held by [your force] is not made out.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information
you have requested does or does not exist.