You will see from the above that the limited information we hold
has already been published and that future data will be published
by the Home Office
I have now considered your remaining questions and I am not
obliged this 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
Section 43 (2) Commercial Interests
Some companies have bespoke systems to accommodate the
disclosure of data via a secure system to enable virtual
'real-time' collection by the police and those systems need to be
funded through cost recovery.
To disclose the actual breakdown of prices charged by these
companies would reveal an inaccurate 'skewing' of the cost recovery
statistics as CSPs who have built bespoke systems provide more
services than CSPs who do not. Any misinterpretation by individuals
may result in certain CSPs being branded as 'the criminal's choice'
which would damage the working relationship between the police,
CSPs and the Government.
With this relationship impeded, a CSP may pull their services
without prior notice which would compromise the prevention and
detection of crime.
Disclosure would also reveal which CSPs are limited in their
abilities and those which have the better capabilities, potentially
giving a tactical advantage to criminals who would choose networks
based on risk.
A total breakdown of charges would reveal the services provided
by CSPs, which would include covert services. Any such disclosure
would provide the full inability and capabilities of each CSP which
in turn would benefit a terrorist or criminal by revealing what
services and systems are used by the Police Service. This awareness
would enable members of the criminal fraternity to take evasive
steps to avoid detection.
Public Interest Test
Considerations favouring Disclosure for Section 31
When information disclosed relates directly to the efficiency
and effectiveness of the force or its officers it is generally of
benefit to the community. In this case, the release of information
will enable the public to have a better understanding of the
efficiency and effectiveness of the police service.
One of the underlying principles of the Freedom of Information
Act is the need for authorities to be more open and transparent. In
this case, to provide the full detail of costs for telephony data
would provide the community with an awareness that public funds are
being used to resource and finance the use of expert technology to
assist in the prevention or detective of crime; the apprehension or
prosecution of offenders and the administration of justice.
Considerations favouring Non-Disclosure for Section 31
Disclosure of the information may enable individuals or
terrorist organisations to identify expert technology and methods
used by the police service as part of an intelligence gathering
operation. The effectiveness of current and future strategies to
combat terrorist activity may be compromised and may also inhibit
the ability to prevent crime.
Although the request does not ask for personal information the
interests of third parties, i.e. the Communication Service
Providers, is compromised. The Police Service has a moral duty to
protect the sensitive commercial information it holds about any
private company they have dealings with. In this case, to provide
the fine detail of how much the company charges together with a
breakdown of the charge would prejudice the commercial interests of
that company, as detailed within the harm above.
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 could lead to loss of life and injury, would place the safety
of the community in jeopardy.
Factors favouring disclosure for section 43
Disclosure of the requested information would enable the public
to have a better understanding of how public funds are spent and
how the decision-making process is completed. The information
requested is mostly historical.
Factors favouring non-disclosure for section 43
By disclosing the information requested would damage ongoing
tender processes and undermine the relationship between the CSP and
the Police Service and could lead to civil action taking place. To
disclose the information requested would undermine the company in
its ability to be competitive when providing services to the public
sector. The Police Service has a moral duty to protect the
sensitive commercial information it holds about any private company
they have dealings with.
Balancing Test
The Police Service is tasked with detection and prevention of
crime and the Police service will not divulge whether information
is held if it will jeopardise this important role. Although there
is a public interest in knowing that public funds have been spent
wisely, there is a greater public interest in protecting law
enforcement and the capacity and capabilities of the forces and
outside agencies that are used to support this function. As already
stated, The Police Service also has a moral duty to protect the
sensitive commercial information it holds about any private company
they have dealings with. Therefore it is our opinion that the
balance of the public interest lies in not disclosing the amount of
money paid to individual communication service providers.