NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Information Compliance Unit
Professional Standards and Legal Services Department
Durham Constabulary
Peterlee Police Office
St Aidans Way
Peterlee
Co Durham
SR8 1QR
Tel. No: 101 Ext 6702582
Fax No: 0191 3752290
Web Site: www.durham.police.uk
E-mail:
Our Ref: LD/ICU/DC/FOI/465/13
Date 20 August 2013
This matter is being dealt with by Lynne Davidson, Senior Information Officer, Telephone No 0191 3752582
Dear Ms Lavilla
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO:465/13
I write in connection with your request for information dated 24 July 2013 which was received by Durham Constabulary on 25 July 2013. I note you seek access to the following information:
With the recent Govt drive in tackling online images and movies of the sexual abuse of children, I note that the former Chief Executive of CEOP, Jim Gamble, states that the Govt's efforts will prove to be fruitless and that the police should be focusing actually identifying the children contained in the images and the actual offenders in the images. Below is a link to Jim's blog. Jim remarks, "The government must invest to save. In my opinion we are not even getting the first principals right, how many people are working today, Sunday 21st July, to identify, locate and rescue the real children trapped in these images? I would guess the answer is none or at best a handful."
http://t.co/AcF7EGe6ze
I therefore ask:-
1.) How many either full-time or part-time staff does your force have who review child pornography to try and identify the children contained in them? I don't wish to know how many investigators you have investigating those who download the images or those CSI who look at the computers but I'm looking for the total number of staff you have dedicated solely to identifying the children. If you don't have this, why not?
2.) If you do have a dedicated member of staff(s), how many children were identified during the financial year 2012 - 2013 by this individual / team?
I am required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to handle all requests in a manner that is blind as to the identity and motives of the requestor. Any information released as a response to a request is regarded as being published and therefore in the public domain without caveat.
Please note that Durham Constabulary’s response to your request is unique and should not be used as a comparison with any other Force response you receive.
Following receipt of your request, searches were conducted with the Crime and Justice Command of Durham Constabulary.
In relation to question 1): How many either full-time or part-time staff does your force have who review child pornography to try and identify the children contained in them? I don't wish to know how many investigators you have investigating those who download the images or those CSI who look at the computers but I'm looking for the total number of staff you have dedicated solely to identifying the children. If you don't have this, why not?
No information is held in relation to your question. Durham Constabulary does not have any dedicated staff who deal specifically with the review of child pornography to try and identify the children contained in them. This work would be carried out by officers in other areas as part of their policing duties.
Not Disclose:
In relation to question 2): If you do have a dedicated member of staff(s), how many children were identified during the financial year 2012 - 2013 by this individual / team?
Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Durham Constabulary when refusing such information ( because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption and (c) states (if it would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption (a) applies.
Notice of Non-Disclosure
I am not disclosing the above requested information, pursuant to the exemption provision of Section 31(1)(a) (Law Enforcement) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section 31 of the Act (Law Enforcement) states that information by virtue of Section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would likely to prejudice:
• The prevention or detection of crime
• The apprehension or prosecution of offenders
This exemption is a qualified and prejudice based exemption and therefore the legislators accept that there may be harm if released. The authority has to consider and describe the harm that would occur if the information were released and carry out a public interest test. In addition, in view of the fact that Section 31 is prejudice based, I am required to evidence the harm. In accordance with best practice, I detail the harm first.
Harm under Section 31
Any release under the Freedom of Information Act is a disclosure to the world, not just to the individual making the request. To disclose the number of children identified as being a victim of sexual abuse would be inappropriate as it would reveal actual policing activity for this type of offence.
In this case it is publicly acknowledged that Durham Constabulary engages with other law enforcement bodies in order to target this offending behaviour and the partnership approach between national agencies and law enforcement agencies would also be compromised which would affect the delivery of robust operational law enforcement by all partnerships involved in an investigation.
Disclosure would reveal a national activity schedule for investigations into these types of offences and could lead to offenders destroying evidence to avoid apprehension and going ‘underground’ by moving to another area which they feel would be ‘safer’ to carry out their offending behaviour. This would ultimately place the safety of individuals at an increased risk of harm.
It is publicly acknowledged that CEOP and SOCA on occasion work in liaison with police forces on national operations targeting individuals who commit these offences, see below links:
http://ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/CEOP%20IIOCTA%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
http://www.worcesterstandard.co.uk/2012/06/18/news-Man-arrested-on-suspicion-of-indecent-images--42626.html
Therefore, by default, some of the information requested could relate to an exempt body as detailed within Section 23(3).
Public Interest Test – Section 31
Factors favouring Disclosure
Accountability: Disclosing the statistical number of victims as requested could promote public trust in providing transparency and demonstrating openness and accountability into where the police are currently focusing their investigations. This transparency would provide a better awareness to the general public regarding this type of offending which may encourage individuals to provide intelligence in order to reduce the amount of child exploitation offences leading to more information (intelligence) being submitted from the public.
Public Awareness: Disclosure could also provide reassurance to the public that Durham Constabulary conducts its responsibility to deliver effective law enforcement appropriately and would allow the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the Police Service.
Disclosure would also promote confidence that Durham Constabulary takes its responsibility to ensure no stone is left unturned when trying to identify victims of such heinous crimes.
Factors favouring Non-Disclosure
Partnership approach: Modern-day policing is intelligence led and Durham Constabulary shares information with other law enforcement agencies as part of their investigative process into child pornography. To disclose information which would identify where investigations into offences described within the request are active, could hinder the prevention and detection of crime as well as undermine the partnership approach to investigations and law enforcement.
Prevention and Detection of Crime: Should offenders take evasive action to avoid detection police resources may well be diverted from frontline duties and other areas of policing in order to locate and apprehend these individuals. In addition the safety of individuals and victims would be compromised.
Balancing Test
I have carefully considered your request for information. The public interest test is centred on whether information should be released to the world so that ANY person can view this information not just you as a requestor. I have considered the impact that this will have on law enforcement and weighed this against accountability and public awareness factors. The key test when considering the public interest is to establish whether in all the circumstances of the request the public interest in disclosing information is not outweighed by that in maintaining the exemption or exemptions. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities it serves. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and investigations, providing assurance that Durham Constabulary and the wider Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat from criminals in relation to child exploitation, there is a strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and operations. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity with regard to the delivery of effective law enforcement is appropriate and balanced, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.
Decision:
Having weighed up both parts of the public interest test, I have decided on balance it is in the public interest to withhold the requested information in part. This is because I do not see how the release of this information in full can provide a tangible community benefit (i.e. protect life and property and/or assist in prevention and detection of crime and/or the apprehension and prosecution of offenders, etc). While the public interest considerations favouring disclosure carry some weight, it is felt that on balance that the law enforcement aspect derived from non-disclosure is of greater importance than the perceived public confidence derived from disclosure. Consequently in this case, the public interest favours non-disclosure.
In accordance with Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request in relation to question 2.
In addition, Durham Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information with regard to an exempt body as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following exemption:
Section 23(5) Information supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies
Section 23 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in this case.
Confirming or denying the existence of whether any other information is held would contravene the constrictions laid out within Section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in that this stipulates a generic bar on disclosure of any information apply by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.
No inference should be taken that any further information does or does not exist.
Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right to complain.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact me on the above telephone number.
Yours sincerely
Lynne Davidson
Senior Information Officer
(Enc)
We are very keen to ensure that we are tackling issues which matter to you in your community. With our colleagues in the local authority, we have developed Police And Communities Together (PACT) meetings = to ensure that you have a chance to engage with local officers from your beat team and tell us your concerns.
This is your opportunity to influence what we focus on, where you live.
You can find out more about PACT:
By ringing Durham Constabulary on 101
By logging on to www.durham.police.uk
By following us on Twitter and Facebook
PERSONAL
Ms Sandra Lavilla
Email:
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
3