Minicams Cheshire East

Looking into an FOI request made by a member of the public, about the use of Minicams in the borough of Cheshire East.

You'll see below that 12 were installed in the borough of Cheshire East between July 2009 and September 2010, paid for by Cheshire Constabulary.

Please could you tell me:

The updated figure of minicams up to the present day.

The cost per minicam, and total cost of the minicams.

Reasons for installing the minicams (were they all just to stop doorstep criminals?)

How many charges have been issued, prosecutions achieved, or ASBO's/other sort of civil orders issued using the evidence collected by the minicams?

Please could you say where these have been installed (don't want specific addresses, just street names and town)?

In accordance with the Act our response is provided below;

In relation to the cost of the cameras this can vary between £270 and £360 and thus far we have spent £6,052.80.

In relation to the remainder of your questions please see below:

Cheshire Constabulary neither confirms nor denies that it holds the information requested. To give a statement of the reasons why neither confirming nor denying is appropriate in this case would itself involve disclosure of exempt information, therefore under section 17 (4), no explanation can be given. To the extent that section 31(3) and section 38 (2) applies, the Cheshire Constabulary has determined that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to neither confirm nor deny outweighs the public interest in confirming whether or not the information is held.

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Section 38 (2) Health & Safety

Sections 31 and 38 are prejudice based qualified exemptions, there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or denying that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.

Harm and Public Interest Considerations with regard to Confirming or Denying that the Information is held.

Harm (Section 31)

Confirmation or denial that certain information was or was not held in relation to the cameras could provide useful information to those who seek to avoid detection by law enforcement agencies, and would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime. For example, to state that there are a specific number of cameras in Town "A" would suggest to a criminal to avoid that area and move to another town. To state that there are no cameras in Town "A" would provide the information to a criminal that this particular town is susceptible to future crimes.

Harm (Section 38)

Confirmation or denial that certain information was or was not held in relation to the cameras could jeopardise the lives and well being of members of the public, in particular the vulnerable and elderly. For example: to confirm that in a street of 10 houses with 6 residents being vulnerable or elderly, to then state that 5 cameras were installed could along with other information narrow down the exact location of the cameras and conversely for those streets not named could heighten the vulnerability of those residents.

PIT (Section 31 & 38)

Considerations in favour of disclosure

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.

Considerations in favour of non disclosure

By citing exemptions or stating ‘no information held’ we would by default be confirming our exact technical abilities, this would enable those criminals who speculate about such matters to be better informed, allowing them to take relevant countermeasures.

Modern-day policing is intelligence led and the Police Service share information with other law enforcement agencies as part of the intelligence gathering process. Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, the Police Service will never confirm details which could undermine the partnership approach of information sharing or law enforcement.

Balancing Test

Public safety and the prevention and detection of crime is of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge whether information is or isn’t held if to do so would place the safety of members of public at risk. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.

No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.