In accordance with section 1(1) (b) of the Act our response is
provided below;
Question 1: Not held. Your request was submitted prior to the
end of the financial year. That information is therefore not yet
available
Question 2:
2007/08, £75,229
2008/09 £71,900
2009/10. £72,648 (This is the last complete financial year.)
Question 3: This information is no longer held.
Question 4: I am not obliged to supply this information as it is
exempt information in accordance with:
Section 30 (2) (b) Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by
Public Authorities.
The following public interest considerations which relate to the
application of section 30 exemption have been considered
Factors favouring disclosure
There is information within the public domain confirming that
police use covert human intelligence sources to assist them with
investigations and the effective delivery of law enforcement.
Disclosure would enhance the public’s knowledge about how
information relating to informants is used by the Constabulary and
how the intelligence received assists in day to day investigations
and operations to assist with the prevention and detection of
crime; the apprehension and prosecution of offenders and the
administration of justice.
Disclosure would also assist in stopping any incorrect rumours
or falsehoods relating to how the police store and manage how
informants assist the police.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Disclosure of the information requested could identify informant
activity within a force area. Over a period of time if several
disclosures were made, individuals could analyse the information
and identify any sudden peaks or troughs in informant activity.
This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and also
prejudice our ability to maintain confidential sources.
Consequently, the force’s future law enforcement capabilities would
be affected.
Balancing Test
There is information within the public domain confirming that
police use covert human intelligence sources to assist them with
investigations and the effective delivery of law enforcement. The
Police Service is tasked with protecting the community we serve and
solving crime and there is a public interest argument in ensuring
we are open and transparent with regard to policing investigations
and operations. There is no doubt that for the issues outlined
above any disclosure relating to sensitive informant information
would jeopardise those important roles.
As has been mentioned, informants play a vital role in assisting
the police and is based very much on relationships built on trust
and the expectation of complete confidentiality. The Cheshire
Constabulary would never disclose information which would
compromise our tactics.
It is therefore our opinion that in all the circumstances of the
case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs
the public interest in disclosing the information.
Additionally, the Cheshire Constabulary can neither confirm nor
deny that they hold any other information relevant to the whole of
your request by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) Information relating to security bodies listed at
Section 23 (3)
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 23 of the Act states
23 Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with
security matters
(5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the
extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the
disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded)
which was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority
by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection
(3).
This is an absolute exemption and I am therefore not required to
complete a public interest test.
Section 24 National security
(1) Information which does not fall within section 23(1) is
exempt information if exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required
for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the
extent that, exemption from section 1(1)(a) is required for the
purpose of safeguarding national security.
The police service works in partnership with other agencies in
order to combat issues such as terrorism and organised crime. As
such, information may sometimes be provided by bodies listed at
section 23(3). In this case, I am unable to confirm or deny whether
the Cheshire Constabulary holds any other information relevant to
your request and sections 23 (5) and 24(2) are cited in conjunction
to protect the involvement or non-involvement of bodies listed at
section 23(3).
Section 23(5) is an absolute exemption and as such no public
interest test is required. Section 24(2) is a qualified exemption
and as such there is a requirement to complete a test of the public
interest in confirmation or denial.
The above quoted total payments to informants does not include
any payments made to informants where funding may have been
supplied by exempt bodies.
Harm for neither confirming nor denying that any other
information is held for Section 24
Disclosure of informants data could impact on the recruitment
and retention of CHIS in general, due to the perception of (rather
than the actual) risk of identification. In a recent Information
Tribunal case relating to the payments made to CHIS in Croydon
(EA/2010/0006), it was accepted that this argument applied as much
to CHIS providing intelligence in relation to national security
concerns as to CHIS engaged in countering more traditional criminal
threats. In this way, the disclosure of payment information would
damage national security through discouraging current national
security CHIS from cooperating with the police service in other
geographical areas, or preventing the recruitment of national
security CHIS in the future – regardless of whether the area in
question actually currently runs CHIS reporting on serious crime,
terrorist or other threats.
Public Interest test for S24
Factors favouring confirming or denying that any other
information is held for Section 24
Confirmation or denial that any other information exists
relevant to the request would lead to a better informed public and
the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent. The
information simply relates to national security and disclosure
would not actually harm it.
Factors against confirming or denying that any other information
is held for Section 24
Other organisations outside the police service are also widely
engaged in rewarding informants in a number of ways, and therefore
by confirming or denying that any other information exists relevant
to the request would harm the close relationship that exists with
such organisations, where trust and confidence in this specific
area has been built up in the exchange of information and financial
assistance during the Criminal Justice process.
To confirm or deny whether the Cheshire Constabulary holds any
additional information would allow inferences to be made about the
nature and extent of national security related activities which may
or may not take place in a given area. This could enable terrorist
groups to take steps to avoid detection, and as such, confirmation
or denial would be damaging to national security
By confirming or denying any policing arrangements of this
nature would render national security measures less effective. This
would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to
protect the security or infrastructure of the UK and increase the
risk of harm to the public.
Balance test for Section 24
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing
and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. The
security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police
service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if
to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or
undermine National Security. Whilst there is a public interest in
the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance
that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging
with the threat from criminals, there is a very strong public
interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity
of police investigations and operations in this highly sensitive
area. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing
activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of national
security, this will only be overridden in exceptional
circumstances.
It is therefore our opinion that for these issues the balancing
test for confirming or not that information is held, is not made
out
In addition I would draw your attention to previous responses in
which you will find further detail relating to the same topic.
There is no change to the information provided in those disclosures
in particular the harm that relates to further exemptions:
FOI Request 2461
FOI Request 2615