In accordance with section 1(1) (b) of the Act our response is
provided below;
1) How many Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs) are currently being
monitored by Cheshire Police?
Please see the following web pages as I believe that your
questions may be answered via the following information and is
therefore exempt in accordance with section 21 (1) of the Act: For
English and Welsh forces, MAPPA reports dating back to 2001 are
available at the following links: MAPPA
Report
2) Of those, how many have moved from the address they are
supposed to be living at in accordance with the Sex Offenders'
Register without informing Cheshire Police? ie their current
whereabouts are unknown
‘In relation to the number of registered sexual offenders whose
whereabouts are unknown, Cheshire Constabulary, have as the date of
your request, 2 RSO’s currently recorded as wanted because their
whereabouts are unknown. This total is only valid for the date in
question because the information is dynamic and will change as
arrests are made or new cases come to light through proactive
intelligence led policing or routine visits to registered
offenders.
3) Of those who have been found to have moved from their
designated address without informing you, how many were classed as
very high risk, how many were high risk, how many were medium risk
and how many were low risk?
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 requested relates to a further breakdown of low
level RSO data whose whereabouts are unknown and disclosure could
undermine effective law enforcement and Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) and
Section 38(1)(a)(b) is engaged.
Evidence of Harm
MAPPA reports classify offenders by risk, level 1, 2 and 3.
An example of the harm that could be caused would be if we
disclosed that we currently had 12 missing RSOs , four were classed
as Level 1, eight as Level 2 and none for level three that were
currently missing. If an individual was not complying with the
requirements of the Sexual Offenders Act 2003, had gone
‘underground’ and was aware that they are classed as level 3, this
would highlight to that individual that the police are unaware of
their ‘missing’ status and their current breach of the notification
requirements. This knowledge could lead to the individual staying
‘underground’ and carrying out further offences compromising public
safety.
A tragic example of this is the murder of Angelika Kluk by Peter
Tobin, a convicted sex offender which occurred in Glasgow in 2006.
Tobin was a convicted sex offender at the time and in breach of the
terms imposed on him under the Sexual Offenders Act as he had been
missing since October 2005. Public Safety is of paramount
importance and the Police Service will not disclose information
which would jeopardise safety under any circumstances.
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 level of
seriousness of offences committed by the missing sex offender,
allowing the public to make individual judgements on personal and
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 sex offenders are of general concern to the public. This
would contribute to the quality and accuracy of public debate
enabling the community to make informed decisions on 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 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 a 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.
You may find the folllowing useful - published details of some
high risk missing RSO’s – such as the following link on the
Crimestoppers web site
4) How long is it since each of these "missing" RSOs was known
to have been living at their designated address?
Both have been missing for 4 years
5) Have the details of any of these "missing" RSOs been passed
to other police forces and if so how many?
Yes for Both