FOI ref no: 5484
09/04/2015
Mr L Anderson
DearMr Anderson
Freedom of Information request: reference 5484 first notified to us by email on 14 January 2015.
Thank you for your recent request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The force’s response to your enquiry is as follows:
I am seeking information regarding payments made by the police to prosecution witnesses in the course of investigation into serious crime. I am interested in the payments of publically offered rewards as well as any other payments that may have been made by the police.
In this particular request I am interested one particular case that is the murder investigation following the discovery of the body of Floyd Dodson hidden in a plastic barrel in a lane at Pendeford in September 1999. This investigation conducted by Staffordshire Police continued for serval years and resulted the conviction of Nigel Brade in 2003 for Mr Dodson's manslaughter.
The purpose of my request is to gather information concerning the ethically and legal basis of payments that are made to potential prosecution witnesses (whether or not that witness actually gives evidence during any subsequent hearing). I believe that the provision of the information requested is in the public interest.
The specific information I am requesting is as follows:-
1. Does Staffordshire Police have a policy on payments to potential prosecution witnesses (whether or not that witness actually gives evidence during any subsequent hearing), if so what is the policy.
2. Does Staffordshire Police maintain a central register of rewards or other payments are made or paid to potential prosecution witnesses (whether or not that witness actually gives evidence during any subsequent hearing)
3. Does Staffordshire Police permit the payments to potential prosecution witnesses prior to the conclusion of any related court proceedings.
4. The rank and name of the senior officer leading the investigation into this particular murder case.
5. Was any reward offered in this case.
6. If a reward offered was any reward paid out? If so what amount paid out.
7. If a reward was paid was any part of the reward paid to a potential prosecution witnesses (whether or not that witness actually gives evidence during any subsequent hearing).
8. If any payment(s) were made to potential prosecution witnesses (whether or not that witness actually gives evidence during any subsequent hearing) please provide the dates (month and year will suffice) that any payments were made.
9. What was the name of the barrister or law firm that represented Mr Brade.
I can confirm Staffordshire Police does hold some of the information you have requested.
1. Does Staffordshire Police have a policy on payments to potential prosecution witnesses (whether or not that witness actually gives evidence during any subsequent hearing), if so what is the policy.
No information held.
2. Does Staffordshire Police maintain a central register of rewards or other payments are made or paid to potential prosecution witnesses (whether or not that witness actually gives evidence during any subsequent hearing)
No information held.
3. Does Staffordshire Police permit the payments to potential prosecution witnesses prior to the conclusion of any related court proceedings.
CLARIFICATION RECEIVED 16/2/15
In request 3 the term payment means any cash payment made to or on behalf of a prosecution witness other than itemised expenses claimed by the witness as part of the Court Proceedings Process.
The management of payments by Staffordshire Police is on a case by case basis and where this leads to a prosecution it involves the engagement of the Crown Prosecution Service to comply with obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
4. The rank and name of the senior officer leading the investigation into this particular murder case.
Detective Superintendent P Davey.
5. Was any reward offered in this case.
6. If a reward offered was any reward paid out? If so what amount paid out.
7. If a reward was paid was any part of the reward paid to a potential prosecution witnesses (whether or not that witness actually gives evidence during any subsequent hearing).
8. If any payment(s) were made to potential prosecution witnesses (whether or not that witness actually gives evidence during any subsequent hearing) please provide the dates (month and year will suffice) that any payments were made.
Staffordshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to the above questions by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 41(2) Information provided in confidence
Section 40(5) Personal Information
Section 30(3) Investigations
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Section 30(3) Investigations
Sections 30 is class based and qualified. There is a requirement to consider the public interest to ensure neither confirming nor denying any information is held is appropriate.
Factors favouring confirming or denying information is held
The police service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. Confirming that information exists could promote public trust in providing transparency and demonstrating openness and accountability into how the investigation took place.
Factors against confirming or denying that any information is held
Information requested is sensitive in nature. Under FOI there is a requirement to comply with S1(1)(a) and confirm what information is held. In some cases it is that confirmation, or not which could disclose harmful facts. The police service will never disclose information which could undermine investigations.
Section 40(5) Personal Information
Section 40(5) is an absolute exemption which means that there is no need to quantify the harm that may arise from disclosure; neither is it subject to a public interest test.
To release personal/third party information or any information increases the risk of identifying an individual/s which may or may not be held by Staffordshire Police would breach the data protection principles, namely –
- Data is fairly and lawfully processed
- Processed in line with an individual’s rights
- Data is secure
Section 41(2) Information provided in confidence
Section 41 is an absolute exemption and is also class based which means there is a requirement to consider the public interest to ensure neither confirming nor denying any information is held is appropriate.
Factors favouring confirming nor denying that any information is held
Confirming that information exists or does not exist could promote public trust in providing transparency and demonstrating openness and accountability into how the investigation took place.
Factors against confirming or denying that any information is held
To confirm or deny that the force hold any information on payments/recipients could constitute an actionable breach of confidence.
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Section 31 is a prejudice-based and qualified exemption and there is a requirement to consider the public interest to ensure neither confirming nor denying any information is held is appropriate.
Factors favouring confirming or denying that any information is held
To confirm or deny that the force hold information may lead to better public awareness into how Staffordshire Police tackle crime which may lead to more information being submitted from the public which may culminate in a reduction in crime.
Factors against confirming or denying that any information is held
Information sharing takes place between the police and other individuals and to confirm or deny that any information is held in relation to this request could jeopardise that process for future investigations by revealing the tactics used by the police.
Balance Test
The police service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, part of that policing purpose, involves the use of various tactical tools. To confirm or deny that any information is held relevant to the questions asked would have an adverse effect on future investigations where the willingness of individuals to supply information to the police service is greatly reduced as they would not have confidence in the police service protecting their safety. The police service would not want to do anything that would undermine any trust or confidence individuals have in us.
Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that information exists.
No inference can be drawn from this refusal that information is or is not held.
9. What was the name of the barrister or law firm that represented Mr Brade.
William Strachen & Co
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of this email and should be addressed to:
Tracey Brindley
Freedom of Information
Corporate Communications
Staffordshire Police
PO Box 3167
Stafford
ST16 9JZ
Please remember to quote the reference number in any future communications.
Should you require any further information please contact me on 01785 232411.
Yours sincerely
Tracey Brindley
Freedom of Information Coordinator