In accordance with section 1(1) (b) of the Act our response is
provided below;
Question 1:
Between 1st October 2008 and 30th September 2009 - 5 people
charged
Between 1st October 2009 and 30th September 2010 - 5 people
charged
Between 1st October 2010 and 30 September 2011 - 1 person charged
and 1 person cautioned
Question 2:
Of the above 12 people, 6 of them used the internet
Question 3:
We have previously disclosed to you in 2010 that in the calendar
year 2008 Facebook was used.
In so far as any other information is concerned I have now
considered that part of your request and I am not obliged to
provide 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 31(1) (a) (b) Law
Enforcement.
Harm
It is assessed that this information could reveal your forces
knowledge of grooming activities on the internet and specific sites
that could be useful to organised crime groups and others. This may
only be slightly harmful at an individual force level but given
that the request has been sent to all other UK forces, the combined
value of this information is much greater. The information for all
forces will allow those so minded to construct an analysis of
websites most likely to be investigated which could prompt people
to use other sites for grooming activities. This makes detection of
offences more difficult and also places children at risk if it is
easier for offenders to commit these offences.
Accordingly it is assessed that this information is caught by
the Section 31 exemption. In support of this mosaic effect, I would
refer to ICO Decision Notice FS50142321 – a request seeking details
of seizures of contraband at Bristol Airport and Avonmouth and
Portbury Docks. The arguments regarding the cumulative effects of
adding together small pieces of information in that case reflect
the concerns about these questions.
Public Interest Test
For
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 to ensure investigations are conducted
appropriately.
It could be argued that it is in the public interest that people
are made aware of the websites that sex offenders are using for
grooming activities so that additional steps could be made to
protect their children from those sites.
Against
Disclosure could hinder the prevention or detection of crime as it
would reveal to the criminal fraternity information which could be
used to their advantage. It also provides lists of websites where
this activity is taking place and those intent on committing such
offences would find that information useful. Similarly, a full
disclosure of all of the websites, for the time scales specified,
would disclose information about ongoing investigations, this would
undermine those investigations.
Balance
The public already have a wealth of knowledge about the dangers of
unsupervised online activity via official government campaigns, the
Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and
publicity by such groups as the NSPCC. Also there is exposure by
commercial companies who provide products to assist in this online
protection. This would seem to negate somewhat the benefits of
having knowledge of certain websites when the reality is that any
website which allows interaction between people could possibly be
used for this unlawful purpose. There is also the fact that any
disclosure which makes policing the activities of online groomers
more difficult, means that we are placing children at risk. This is
not something the police service is prepared to do.
In addition to the above:
The Cheshire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it
holds any other information in relation to your request for
information relating to people charged or cautioned with committing
an offence under Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act in each of
the last three years, as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following
exemptions:
Section 23(5) Information Supplied by, or concerning, certain
Security Bodies
Section 30(3) Investigations
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Sections 23, is class based absolute exemptions and there is no
requirement to consider the public interest test in this area.
Section 23 is engaged as the force is unable to confirm or deny
that any information is held which originated, or relates to an
exempt body, in this case the Child Exploitation Online Protection
Agency. The engagement of this exemption is not an inference that
such information is or is not held.
Section 30 is also engaged as we are unable to confirm or deny
that any other information does exist in relation to ongoing
investigations,
S31 is engaged as confirmation or denial that additional
information is held would disclose the full limit of our knowledge
of websites/portals used to commit an offence. This in itself would
prove useful information to person’s intent on committing these
offences.
Harm in Confirming or Denying that the Information is held
Disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act are disclosures to
the world, not just to the individual making the request. To
confirm that any further information relating to suspects
identified by internet use, potentially committing offences under
Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act is held, even if that
information was exempted, or to confirm no information is held,
would provide intelligence to criminals about the status of police
investigations and intelligence.
Public Interest Considerations
Section 30 and Section 31
Factors favouring Confirmation or Denial
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 to ensure investigations are conducted appropriately.
Knowledge of the full range of police information enables more
accurate public debate and transparency.
Factors favouring maintaining Confirmation nor Denial
Modern-day policing is intelligence led and the Police Service
share information with other law enforcement agencies as part of
their intelligence gathering process. To confirm or not whether
information is held would hinder the prevention and detection of
crime and undermine the partnership approach to investigations and
law enforcement. It would also enable criminals to ascertain areas
of police activity, making it easier to commit crime and evade
prosecution.
Balancing Test
Irrespectively of whether information is or isn’t held, public
safety and the ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of
paramount importance to the Police Service. Confirmation or denial
of whether information is held would undoubtedly compromise both
law enforcement and even possibly the health of safety of
individuals. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion
that for these issues the balancing test for confirming whether or
not any other information is held by [your force] is not made out.
In other words the failure to confirm or deny whether other
information exists causes more harm to our law enforcement
capabilities then the public’s right to know if there is such
information.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information
you have requested does or does not exist.