Stop searches, terrorist incidents 449/2024
FOI Reference: 449/2024
Request:
1. In the period 1st January 2022 - 31st December 2023:
2. How many stop and searches were carried out by officers (including PCSO) working for or seconded to your police force, on individuals who were in a public place yet filming/photographing police property? This could include aerial drone photography, mobile phone photography/filming, or the use of higher-level recording equipment.
3. How many stops and searches were under s43 Anti Terrorism Act 2000? (I understand that all stop and searches must record the legislation used.)
4. How many cases at #3 resulted in an arrest?
5. How many cases at #3 resulted in a conviction?
6. How many complaints have occurred against officers for using s43 powers?
7. When was the last time a terrorist incident occurred at a police station in your force area during that period?
8. Please release any guidance you give to officers regarding spotting behaviour (nonverbal & verbal) that could reasonably lead them to believe hostile reconnaissance is being carried out.
Response 1:
Q1 is not a request, but a timeframe relevant to the request overall.
Response 2:
I can confirm that there is no information held by Dyfed-Powys Police due to the fact that this information is not recorded by Dyfed-Powys Police.
Response 3, 4, 6 & 8:
Dyfed Powys Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information with regard to an exempt body 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 24(2) National Security
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Sections 24 and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions, and both evidence of harm and public interest considerations are required.
Evidence of Harm:
Every effort should be made to release information under Freedom of Information. However a FOIA response is considered to be a release to the world, as once the information is published the public authority have no control over what use is made of that information.
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities they serve. In order to achieve these objectives all forces utilise Information Technology essential to front line services. Disclosure of information regarding certain IT services, capabilities and security infrastructure in concert with any formal acknowledgement of strategic deficiency, would reveal intricacies of those systems thereby highlighting vulnerabilities and compromising individual force information assurance.
By confirming or denying that Dyfed-Powys Police hold any information regarding the total number of persons who have been stopped and searched under section 43 of the Terrorism Act (TACT) and/or arrested specifically on the alleged grounds of ‘Hostile Reconnaissance’ in the vicinity of a Dyfed-Powys Police premises would in itself disclose exempt information. Stating information is held would confirm usage and the opposite if there is no such information. Likewise, to confirm or deny complaints have been received as a result of any stop and search activity under s43 TACT for alleged hostile reconnaissance would be disclosing exempt information about policing activity.
To confirm or deny that requested information is held by Dyfed-Powys Police about whether officers are provided guidance as to how they might recognise a person conducting hostile reconnaissance could compromise law enforcement tactics, which would hinder the Police force’s ability to prevent and detect terrorist crimes.
The threat of terrorism cannot be ignored. It should be recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. The UK has faced a sustained threat from violent terrorists and extremists. Since 2006 the UK Government have published the threat level based upon current intelligence. The current threat level in the UK is set at ‘SUBSTANTIAL’, meaning an attack is likely. See below link:
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels
To confirm or deny that the requested information is held would undermine individual forces policing capabilities which consequently would be detrimental to their ability to deal with the on-going terrorist threat we face. By providing data for only 1 type of activity, namely hostile reconnaissance, would allow comparison between forces across the country and enable terrorists to build a picture of what resources are in place, where they are deployed and the focus of investigative activity. It is felt that confirmation or denial that this information is held would prejudice the effectiveness of the national counter terrorism effort and would allow inferences to be drawn about force level counter-terrorism activity and identify vulnerability around the country.
Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any information is held for Section 24
The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and by confirming or denying that this information is held would allow the public to see where money is being spent and know that forces are doing as much as they can to combat terrorism.
Factors against confirming or denying whether any information is held for Section 24
To confirm or deny that this information is held would render security measures less effective which would compromise ongoing or future operations to protect the security and infrastructure of the UK. The risk of harm to the public would be elevated if areas of the UK which appear vulnerable were identified which would also provide the opportunity for terrorist planning. Ongoing or future operations to protect the security and infrastructure of the UK would be compromised as terrorists could map the type and level of counter-terrorist activity across the country, providing them with the knowledge of individual force capability as well as valuable knowledge concerning the vulnerability of individual force areas.
Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any information is held for Section 31
To confirm or deny that this information is held would make members of the public more aware of the threat of terrorism and allow them to take steps to protect themselves and families. Improved public awareness may lead to more intelligence being submitted to police about possible acts of terrorism as members of the public will be more observant to certain types of suspicious activity which in turn may result in a reduction of crime.
Factors against confirming or denying whether any information is held for Section 31
To confirm or deny that the requested information is held could compromise law enforcement tactics which would hinder the Police force’s ability to prevent and detect terrorist crimes. The threat of terrorism will increase as more crimes are committed as a result of terrorists gaining knowledge about the capacity and capability of individual forces and therefore the public will be placed at a greater risk. A fear of crime will be realised as terrorists identify vulnerable areas and target and exploit these areas resulting in the public being in fear of more terrorist activity occurring. There would be an impact on police resources from confirming or denying that information of this nature was held, as vulnerable forces may need to increase their resources to reassure and protect the surrounding community.
Balance test
To confirm or deny that the police have undertaken stop and searches for specific types of terrorist related activity resulting in arrest would start to indicate levels of policing activity at force level which could allow individuals to exploit what may be considered as less active or resourced areas, by assessing patterns of police activity and deployments over time, ultimately to avoid detection.
The security of the country is of paramount importance. The police will not divulge any information that would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine national security. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, and in this case providing assurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with all types of threat posed by terrorist activity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this highly sensitive subject.
As much as there is a public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of national security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Police force’s capabilities of combating terrorism are sensitive issues of intelligence and would be of value to the terrorist and therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying that this information is held, is not made out.
However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.
Response 5:
I can confirm that there is no information held by Dyfed-Powys Police due to the fact that this information is not recorded by Dyfed-Powys Police.
Response 7:
I can confirm that there is no information held by Dyfed-Powys Police due to the fact that this information is not recorded by Dyfed-Powys Police.
Please note: in respect of question 8, general guidance about auditors that was released via FOI at AuditorsSocial Media Bloggers Guidelines v3.pdf (whatdotheyknow.com).
It should be noted that as a result of the systems adopted by Dyfed-Powys Police in relation to the recording of such information that the information released may or may not be accurate.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 11/06/2024)