Palestine Action guidance 761/2025

FOI Reference: 761/2025

Request:

1. Please provide copies of all documents, powerpoint presentations, and/or guidance materials regarding the identification of support for "Palestine Action".
   1. I note that a document was disclosed (https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclosure-2024/july-2024/instructions-tackling-hate-speech-actions-hamas-supporters-marches/) by the Metropolitan Police regarding "instructions about tackling the hate speech and actions by HAMAS supporters on the marches." I am seeking similar, equivalent, and/or updated documents that may include mention of "Palestine Action".
   2. Please also disclose documents related to this that may have been delivered to the police constabulary from the Home Office, Counter Terrorism Policing, or other organisations. Please disclose from which organisation the document originated.
2. Please disclose relevant documents related to the identification of Hamas, Houthi, and/or Hezbollah supporters that have been used/published since July 2024 (not including the one I included in the link above) 

Response 1a and 1b:

I can confirm that there is no information held/recorded Dyfed-Powys Police in respect of question 1a and 1b of your request.

Response 2:

I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, however some of that information has been exempted by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(1) National Security

Section 31(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.

Where exemptions are relied upon section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which:

a) States that fact

b) Specifies the exemption(s) in question and

c) State (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies

Section 31 exemption is a prejudice-based qualified exemption, Section 24 is a qualified class based exemption. In respect of both exemptions there is a requirement to carry out a HARM Test in respect of such information and there is a requirement to carry out a Public Interest Test in order to establish whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption may be outweighed by a wider public benefit in disclosure.

Evidence of harm:

The disclosure of information into the public domain relating to the specific guidance provided regarding matters concerning proscribed terrorist groups would provide those with criminal intent intricate details and reveal specific strategies, tactics and  capabilities of Dyfed Powys police force for this area of policing. This information could be used by individuals with criminal intent, members of proscribed organisations and terrorists to undermine and obstruct operational policing and would aid them in altering their actions to evade detection. This would severely impact the Force’s ability to enforce the law, ensure offenders are apprehended and our ability to protect the public and national security. If this information were to be disclosed on a national scale, those with criminal intent, members of proscribed organisations and terrorists would be able to identify patterns of Police activity, tactical capabilities and operational planning in respect of this area. This in turn would allow those with criminal intent to map the forces as a whole to identify specific Force areas where they may appear to be less resourced or actively policed, which would in turn increase the risk of crime and public safety as those areas could be targeted and exploited. As the request in question directly relates to a proscribed terrorist organisation and therefore by association the counter terrorism strategy, this would subsequently impact the overall security of the UK. In addition to the above, disclosing this information would undermine the effectiveness of current and future Police operations and proceedings. This would reveal intelligence and strategies used to counter criminal activity and apprehend offenders.

Public Interest Test:

In favour of disclosure S24:

The pubic are entitled to know public money is spent in areas of operational policing. Release of the information would facilitate transparency. It would also encourage public debate about how the police prevent and detect crime and uphold the law in terms of proscription of terrorist groups in order to protect the security interests of the UK.

In favour of exemption S24:

To disclose information would render security measures less effective by revealing details of individual force capabilities which could be put together to formulate a national picture of operational counter terrorism strategy. Taking into account the current security climate within the United Kingdom, no information that may aid a criminal, terrorist or proscribed organisation should be disclosed. To what extend this information may aid terrorism in the UK is not precisely known, but it is clear that a disclosure of information will have an impact on the force’s ability to monitor and police proscribed terrorist groups and terrorists effectively; compromising the security of the UK. 

In favour of disclosure S31:

Disclosure of information would provide the pubic with better understanding of operational policing, increase public debate and provide information which may allow the public to take steps to better protect themselves. This awareness may also lead to more information being passed to police by the public as they become more alert to suspicious activity.

In favour of exemption S31:

By disclosing the information, law enforcement tactics would be compromised which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime specific to terrorism. More crime would be committed because members of proscribed terrorist organisations as well as terrorists more widely, would have knowledge of operational capability, tactics, strategy and intelligence which would allow then to operate more effectively as well as avoid detection. This places the public at a significant risk of harm, particularly in areas which may have been perceived to be more vulnerable that others as a result of the mapping effect explained within the harm. Any information which undermines operational law enforcement or places the public at risk is not in the public interest to disclose.

Balance Test

The security of the country is paramount, and the police service will not divulge any information if to do so would place the safety of an individual, the public at large of the national security of the UK at risk. Whilst there is a public interest in transparency of policing and promotion of public debate to improve response, there is a far stronger public interest in safeguarding national security, the integrity of operational policing and keeping the public safe. For these reasons we believe that the balancing test for disclosing the information is not made out in this case.                                   

(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 22/09/2025)