In accordance with section 1(1) (b) of the Act our response is
provided below;
1.April 2008 to April 2009 £ 71735
April 2009 to April 2010 £ 71883
April 2010 to April 2011 £ 73636
With regard to your remaining questions i have now considered
this part of your request and I am not obliged to supply 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 30(2)(b)
(Investigations - relating to the obtaining of information from
confidential sources).
Section 30 Public Interest Considerations
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 the balance lies in favour of
non-disclosure of the information.
Additionally, the 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 [insert force] hold 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.