Threats to kill 645/2021
Request:
- Do you hold the following information:
Regarding a police investigation into alleged threats to kill in 2010:
The investigation was handled by Humberside Police because the alleged offence took place in their patch.
However, the original complaint was made to Dyfed-Powys Police around late March or early April of 2010.
The complainant was Nick Griffin, who was at the time leader of the British National Party and was living in your force's area. The allegation was against a man who was then 29 years old.
What was the role of Dyfed-Powys Police in this matter?
What warnings did Dyfed-Powys Police make to potential victims that there were threats to their life (eg Osman warnings)? What other forces in the UK and overseas were involved in delivering warnings?
Were any of the alleged threats to kill made against the complainant?
What security measures needed to be taken to protect individuals, including the complainant, as a result of the alleged threats?
What was the outcome of the investigation?
Response:
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) 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 Freedom of Information Act 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
Dyfed-Powys Police Force can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any information relevant to your request 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 30(3) Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Section 30 is a class-based qualified exemption and consideration of the public interest must be given as to whether neither confirming nor denying the information exists is the appropriate response.
Section 31 is a prejudice-based and qualified exemption therefore there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not whether information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.
Overall harm for neither confirming nor denying that information is held.
Disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act are disclosures to the world, not just to the individual making the request. Police information refers to all information obtained, recorded or processed for a policing purpose and includes information which is processed (known as data, including personal data) and information which has been subject to a process of evaluation (known as intelligence), see below link:
http://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/information-management/
It is a business process with an intention to provide focus to operational policing and to achieve a disproportionately greater impact from the resources applied to any problem. It is dependent on a clear framework of analysis of information and intelligence allowing a problem solving approach to law enforcement and crime prevention techniques.
To confirm whether information is held or not, would undermine the flow of information (intelligence) received from members of the public into the Police Service and also undermines the Management of Police Information guidance and in due course any relevant investigation(s). Furthermore, confirmation or denial would undermine the guidance set out to forces by the College of Policing within their APP for Information Management.
Section 30(3) Investigations & Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities:
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for Section 30:
Confirmation or denial that any information exists could provide satisfaction to the general public that investigations are conducted properly. In addition it could allow the public to make informed decisions about police procedures and the money spent in this business area.
Factors against confirmation or denial for Section 30:
The police service relies on information being supplied by the public as well as the public rely on information about or supplied by them is handled sensitively, confidentially and appropriately. Any disclosure which undermines this trust and confidence means it is likely that people will be less willing to come forward and provide information to the police, which will impact on our ability to detect and prevent crime. Therefore the Police Service will not disclose whether it has or hasn’t carried out an investigation in relation to a particular individual or residential property unless that information is already in the public domain. Any disclosure under Freedom of Information is a release of information to the world in general and not an individual applicant. Therefore, by simply applying exemptions or stating no information held would confirm whether a force does or does not hold information relating to the request.
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement:
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for Section 31:
By confirming or denying whether information is held, the public would see what concerns were reported or associated to the subject. Better public awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information/intelligence from the public.
Factors against confirmation or denial for Section 31:
The information requested may or may not be linked to an investigation(s). To merely acknowledge the existence of an enquiry would place sensitive information into the public domain. By confirming or denying whether information is held in respect this request would compromise law enforcement tactics which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime. This would result in more risk to the public and consequently require the use of more police resources.
Balance test:
The Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held, if to do so would undermine law enforcement. When considering the public interest there is undoubtedly a call for openness and transparency with regard to the police service and this can be seen from the decision to, at times, publish details of incidents/criminal investigations. That being said, this is only ever done when deemed safe to do so from a law enforcement perspective. These factors need to be weighed against the very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police enquiries/investigations. The police service relies heavily on the public providing information and the public have an expectation that any information they provide will be treated with confidence. Anything that puts that confidence at risk would have a serious detrimental effect on the police service. In this case, to confirm or deny whether information is or isn’t held would undermine law enforcement and/or any investigative processes that may or may not have occurred. It is therefore the Dyfed-Powys Police opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or not that information is held is not made out.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.