In accordance with section 1(1) (a) of the Act our response is
provided below;
I have now considered your request and I am not obliged to
provide 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 by virtue of:
Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) Law Enforcement and Section 38(1) Health
and Safety.
Although it the request is for statistical data only, the
information relates to a category of individuals with a requirement
under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to notify their whereabouts to
the local police, at a low level, e.g. neighbourhood policing
area
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 paedophile. 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 in an internet chatroom. 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.
The present request asks for information to confirm the numbers
of registered sex offenders within a small area of Warrington. When
similar information relating to RSOs has been published on previous
occasions, a clear relationship between the publication of the
information and subsequent public order incidents can be
demonstrated. This is evidenced by the well-documented riots in
Paulsgrove, Hampshire, in 2000, and the attacks on the home of an
individual, previously convicted of sexual offences, in Bishops
Lydeard, Somerset, in 2006. Both incidents followed the publication
of details which actually identified named individuals in national
newspapers, and the subsequent attacks indicate that persons are
placed at risk of physical and mental harm by such disclosures.
There have been a number of instances where unconnected and
innocent individuals have been incorrectly identified as Registered
Sex Offenders who have been named in national newspapers. 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
paedophile. 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 paedophile; one accompanies this imagery by
asking readers to contact them with information about local
convicted paedophile. 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 Information Commissioner 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.” As the requested information in this case would
seek to quantify the registered sex offenders within a small
geographical area, on this basis it is considered likely that the
above effects will occur.
Despite this, any consideration of harm in the disclosure of the
requested information must also consider the fact that similar
information 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:
- 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.)
- 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.
- The website gives clear guidance on what to do, and what not to
do, if a member of the public identifies an offender.
- 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
Considerations favouring disclosure
Accountability
When information disclosed relates directly to the efficiency
and effectiveness of the force or its offices. In this case
disclosure would provide the community with the details of where
sexual offenders reside and reassure the public that the police are
aware of the whereabouts of sexual offenders which will allow the
public to make individual judgements on personal/family
security.
Public Awareness and Debate
Where disclosure can assist individuals by raising awareness of
issues which may be of relevance to them. In this case, issues
regarding registered sex offenders are of general concern to the
public. This information will enable the public to be better
informed with regard to the whereabouts of those offenders. This
will contribute to the quality and accuracy of public debate
enabling the community at large to make decisions about their own
activities.
Considerations 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. In this case, for the
reasons outlined in the evidenced harm, the effectiveness of
current and future strategies for dealing with individuals who
commit sexual offences whilst abroad may be compromised and
undermine the prevention and detection of crime.
Interests of Individuals or 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.
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 policing purpose and must be
considered in respect of every release. As evidenced within the
harm, by providing individuals with information which would assist
their offending behaviour to enable them to carry out offences
which may go undetected, would place the safety of vulnerable child
and adults in jeopardy.
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 Public Awareness and Debate
which needs to be compared to the strongest negative reason, which
in this case is Public Safety. The police service cannot and will
not disclose information which will place the public at risk or
undermine law enforcement thereby assisting those intent on
committing crime.
Information released under FOIA, where exemptions apply, will
only be done where there is a tangible community benefit which is
more powerful than the harm that could be done. This does not apply
in this case. In all the circumstances of the case the public
interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public
interest in disclosing the information.
I also need to consider the Sexual Offences Act 1992 which
extends the anonymity that was once given only to victims of rape,
to victims of most other sexual offences. Section 2 (as amended by
Schedule 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) provides a list of
offences, the victims of which are guaranteed anonymity under the
provision of Section 1.
I can inform you that statistical information relating to sex
offenders is published annually by MAPPA (Multi Agency Public
Protection Arrangements). Reports can be viewed on line at the
following web link:
Home office Report