Dyffryn Amman incident 464/2024
FOI Reference: 464/2024
Request:
1) Access to the body worn video of the arrest of the female arrested in the incident at Dyffryn Amman (24/04/2024) Her face can be blurred.
2) The response time from Dyfed Powys Police to the incident.
3) How many officers attended the incident
4) Access to the body worn video of the arrest / warrant of the arrest of her brother that occurred in Cross Hands area (25/04/2024)
Response 1, 2 & 3:
I can confirm that Dyfed Powys Police does hold the information requested, however the following exemptions have been applied to the release of the information requested.
Section 30(1)(a) – Investigations and Proceedings conducted by Public Authorities
Section 40(2) – Personal Information
Section 30(1)(a) is a class-based qualified exemption. This means that the legislators when writing the legislation considered that the release of such information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would cause harm to the public authority or individual concerned. There is therefore no requirement to carry out a HARM Test in respect of such information. However, 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.
The Section 40(2) is a class-based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in disclosure. That being said, where Section 40(2) is engaged in order to make the exemption absolute there needs to be evidence that a data protection principle would be breached by disclosure. In this case, it would not be fair to process information which could lead to the identification of an individual. Therefore, the first principle of the Data Protection Act would be breached.
Section 30(1)(a) Investigations and Proceedings conducted by Public Authorities:
(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of -
(a) Any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained (i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or (ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it.
Public Interest Test
Considerations favouring disclosure:
Disclosure of the information would improve the public’s knowledge and awareness and would provide satisfaction to the public that these cases are investigated thoroughly, and offenders are being dealt with accordingly.
Considerations favouring non-disclosure:
This exemption covers information held at any time for the purpose of an investigation, whether the case is ongoing, closed or abandoned. To release specific details of an ongoing investigation, as in this case, could undermine and prejudice those investigations. This would impact on the forces’ future law enforcement capabilities by hindering the prevention or detection of crime.
Balancing Test
After considering the advantages and disadvantages in disclosure, it falls upon Dyfed-Powys Police to conduct a balance test on the issues. The strongest argument for disclosure, which is public awareness, needs to be weighed against the strongest arguments for non-disclosure, which in this case is that the release would undermine and prejudice ongoing investigations, which would impact on the forces’ future law enforcement capabilities by hindering the prevention or detection of crime.
Therefore, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Section 40(2) – Personal Information:
Section 40(2) applies to third party personal data and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 if disclosure, in relation to data subject to law enforcement processing, would breach any of the data protection principles contained within Part 3 - Chapter 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Under Section 34 within Chapter 2 “The Controller in relation to personal data is responsible for and must be able to demonstrate, compliance with” Chapter 2. Such information would not be released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless there is a strong public interest. One of the main differences between the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 2018 is that any information released under FOI is released into the public domain, not just the individual requesting the information and disclosure under the Act must be made with that in mind. As such, any release that identifies an individual through releasing their personal data, even third-party personal data is exempt.
Personal data is defined under Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 as:
“(2) ‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual (subject to subsection (14)(c)).
(3) ‘Identifiable living individual’ means a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to—
(a) An identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identifier, or
(b) One or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual.”
All members of the public including those employed by the force have an intrinsic right to privacy and these rights are protected by virtue of the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and a public authority must not interfere with that right. Any release of the information subject to the exemption is likely to compromise those rights.
Data Protection Act 2018
Part 3 – Law Enforcement – Chapter 2 Principles Section 35
The first data protection principle:
“(1) The first data protection principle is that the processing of personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be lawful and fair.”
General Data Protection Regulation
Article 5 of the GDPR – ‘Principles relating to processing of personal data’ provides:
“1. ‘Personal data’ shall be
(a) Processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency);
(b) Collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest…
-
- The controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 (‘accountability’).”
Dyfed-Powys Police would not want to disclose any information that could potentially identify an individual. In this particular case, to release the information relating to an ongoing investigation could lead to the identification of an individual/individuals. To release such information would be a direct breach of Data Protection legislation therefore as a consequence I am satisfied that Section 40(2) Personal Information exemption is applicable to the release of the information.
Section 40(2) is a class-based absolute exemption. This means that the legislators when writing the legislation considered that the release of such information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would cause harm to the public authority or individual concerned. In the present case it would be absolute as to release the information would breach Data Protection legislation and therefore there is no requirement to carry out a public interest test.
Response 4:
Dyfed-Powys Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this 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 & Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities
Section 40(5) - Personal Information
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 40 is an absolute class-based exemption and therefore there is no requirement to conduct a harm or public interest test.
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 such investigations are conducted properly.
Factors against confirmation or denial for Section 30:
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that Dyfed-Powys Police is appropriately and effectively dealing with such incidents/investigations, there is a strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and operations and in maintaining confidence in the Police Service. Confirmation or denial that any information is held relevant to the request would undermine and compromise the integrity of any investigative process.
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.
Balance Test
The points above highlight the merits of confirming or denying that information pertinent to this request exists. The Police Service relies heavily on the public, other law enforcement and local authority agencies providing and sharing information to assist in investigations. Although the way the Police conduct investigations should be transparent and shared with the public, they have a greater duty to protect the public from harm or distress to safeguard the integrity of police investigations, therefore it is Dyfed-Powys Police’s opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or not that information is held, is not made out. In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.
Section 40(5) – Personal Information:
The duty to neither confirm nor deny under this section of the Act arises if confirmation as to whether the requested information is or isn’t held would breach any of the data protection principles contained within Part 3 - Chapter 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Under Section 34 within Chapter 2 “The Controller in relation to personal data is responsible for and must be able to demonstrate, compliance with” Chapter 2. Such information would not be confirmed as held under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless there is a strong public interest. One of the main differences between the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 2018 is that any information released under FOI is released into the public domain, not just the individual requesting the information and disclosure under the Act must be made with that in mind. As such, any release that identifies an individual through releasing their personal data, even third-party personal data is exempt.
Personal data is defined under Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 as:
“(2) ‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual (subject to subsection (14)(c)).
(3) ‘Identifiable living individual’ means a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to—
(a) An identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identifier, or
(b) One or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual.”
All members of the public including those employed by the force have an intrinsic right to privacy and these rights are protected by virtue of the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and a public authority must not interfere with that right. Any release of the information subject to the exemption is likely to compromise those rights.
Data Protection Act 2018
Part 3 – Law Enforcement – Chapter 2 Principles Section 35
The first data protection principle:
“(1) The first data protection principle is that the processing of personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be lawful and fair.”
UK General Data Protection Regulation
Article 5 of the GDPR – ‘Principles relating to processing of personal data’ provides:
“1. ‘Personal data’ shall be
(a) Processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency);
(b) Collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest…
2. The controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 (‘accountability’).”
Dyfed-Powys Police would not want to confirm nor deny whether any information is held, relevant to the request, if confirmation/denial could potentially identify an individual. In this case, any information that may or may not be held relevant to the request could potentially contain personal data of identifiable individual(s) and any disclosure, by citing an exemption or stating no information held would clearly breach the Data Protection Act as a consequence I am satisfied that Section 40(5) Personal Information exemption is applicable.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 21/06/2024)