Non-fatal strangulation 400/2024
FOI Reference: 400/2024
Request:
My request relates to reports and charges for non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation.
Please note there are three parts to my request.
1.
In the dates between 7 June 2022 and 12 April 2024, has your force investigated the following offences:
SC15005 (non-fatal strangulation),
SC15006 (non-fatal suffocation)
For each offence, please provide:
(a) How many times your force has investigated the offence
(b) Whether the investigation led to a charge or summons
For more information on the offences and the codes, please refer to this link.
2.
Has your force received training on the two offences
SC15005 (non-fatal strangulation),
SC15006 (non-fatal suffocation)
since they were created on 7 June 2022.
Please provide a Y/N answer.
3.
If the answer to Q2 is "yes", please provide:
(a) How many serving police staff have received the training
(b) Copies of the training materials used
Amendment to request:
- (a) How many serving police officers have received the training
Further amendment to request:
Request 1 & 2 should read:-
Home Office code 008/77 Non fatal strangulation and suffocation.
Response 1:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
a) Between 7 June 2022 and 12 April 2024, there were 836 `non-fatal strangulation and suffocation’ offences.
b) Of the `non-fatal strangulation and suffocation’ offences, 84 have resulted in a charge or summons.
Response 2:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
Yes.
Yes.
Response 3a:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
a) 142 officers received initial training in the time period specified. In 2022 6 officers completed additional PIP 2 training. In 2023 21 officers completed additional PIP 2 training.
Response 3b:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, however a Section 31(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement exemption has been applied to part of the requested information thereby exempting its release.
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(1)(a)(b) Law Enforcement:
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to prejudice -
(a) the prevention or detection of crime
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders
Section 31 is a prejudice based qualified exemption and as such there is a requirement to provide details of the harm as well as the public interest test.
Harm in Disclosure
The FOI Act is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we are expressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to the UK.
Where disclosure will likely jeopardise the primary functions of Dyfed-Powys Police, namely to prevent and detect crime as well as apprehend and prosecute offenders, information needs to be protected.
To release training materials has the potential to be harmful as it would provide an insight how the Force responds to reports of non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation incidents. Disclosure risks building a wider picture, by providing specifics of training provided to officer, could provide positive intelligence to the criminal fraternity.
The disclosure of information which is likely to undermine the Police service’s ability to serve the public by providing the primary functions stated, can only be considered as being harmful to the public.
Public Interest Test
Considerations favouring disclosure:
Disclosure would allow for greater public awareness and openness over Dyfed-Powys Police training resources. As a result, the public would become more informed on how and where public funds are being spent in this area of policing and gain a greater knowledge of the resources available to prevent and detect crime. In itself that can lead to a reduction of crime and give the public more confidence in reporting incidents of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.
Considerations favouring non-disclosure:
Disclosing the requested information would have a detrimental impact upon operational policing. Disclosing training materials would provide those individuals or groups within the criminal fraternity a significant operational advantage as the information could be used with a view to disrupt training or develop tactics that could avoid attention from themselves. This would clearly jeopardise the ability of Dyfed-Powys Police to respond appropriately to criminal activity and thereby protect the public.
The requested information could be used to compromise law enforcement capabilities by decreasing the ability of the police to fight crime, which would increase the commission of crime and subsequently have a detrimental impact on public safety as well as decrease public confidence in the police force.
Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the requested information would not be in the public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure.
I find that the strongest reasons favouring disclosure are to provide greater public awareness and openness in how public funding is being spent, and whether Dyfed-Powys Police is suitably resourced to deal with non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation incidents.
However, the strongest and most decisive reasons against disclosure are the impact that disclosure would have on public safety, and the prevention of the malicious redirecting of Dyfed-Powys Police resources.
Clearly the release of any information that is likely to assist the criminal network and impact on our operational and tactical capabilities cannot be in the public interest and whilst wishing to embrace the ethos of information disclosure, this cannot take precedence over public safety.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 01/07/2024)