1127/23 Officers deployed abroad
OFFICIAL
FOI Reference: 1127/2023
Request:
Please answer the following questions for the time period between 1 Jan 2023 and 31 Oct 2023:
- Please can you provide me with the names of all the countries that officers from your force were deployed to, to either assist or train local law enforcement or as a response to requests from foreign governments/police forces after a major incident such as a terror attack (please specify), along with the number of officers that were deployed to each country?
- Please can you tell me the total cost of each deployment (with the breakdown of the costs incurred).
Response 1:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
A total of 1 Police Officer was deployed in the timeframe specified to the Royal British Virgin Islands. The deployment was in a training role after Hurricane Irma.
Response 2:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
The cost to Dyfed-Powys Police for the 1 deployed Police Officer was Zero (0) due to the fact that the cost was reclaimed from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Additionally, 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 23(5) – Information supplied by or concerning certain Security Bodies
Section 24(2) – National Security
Section 23 is a class-based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in this case.
Confirming or denying the existence of whether any other information is held would contravene the constrictions laid out within Section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in that this stipulates a generic bar on disclosure of any information applied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.
Section 24 is a prejudice based qualified exemption and both evidence of harm and public interest considerations need to be articulated to the applicant.
Section 24 Evidence of Harm
Any release under FOIA is a disclosure to the world, not just to the individual making the request. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying that any information is held relating to countries that our officers may have been deployed to in order to either assist or train local police forces or as a response to a request from foreign governments / police forces in response to major incidents (and the cost of it) would highlight to criminals the tactical abilities and capabilities between the force and the relevant country. This awareness would allow terrorists to target specific areas within the United Kingdom and abroad which they feel are vulnerable targets.
Confirming or denying whether or not information is held would allow members of the public to identify the resources and tactics used to assist other forces and would enable individuals and organisations that are intent on causing disruption to identify strengths and weaknesses at force level, and more so nationally, which could be exploited causing harm to members of the public.
The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored. It is generally recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. Since 2006, the UK Government has published the threat level based upon current intelligence, and that threat is currently judged as “SUBSTANTIAL”, meaning that an attack on the UK is likely. It is well established that police forces use tactics and technology to gain intelligence in order to counteract criminal behaviour, and it has been previously documented in the media that many terrorist incidents have been thwarted due to intelligence gained by these means.
Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both National Security and Law Enforcement.
Section 24 Public Interest Test
Factors favouring Confirming or Denying:
The information, if held, simply relates to national security and confirming or denying would not actually harm it. The public are entitled to know what public funds are spent on and whether appropriate security measures are in place. To confirm or deny whether any information exists in this case would lead to a better informed public
Factors against Confirming or Denying:
By confirming or denying whether any information is held would render security measures less effective and could lead to ongoing or future operations to protect the security of the United Kingdom being compromised and becoming less effective. This in turn would increase the risk of harm to the public.
Section 24 Balance Test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge whether any other information is or isn’t held if to do so would undermine National Security. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of training provided to officers and staff in other countries, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police training and relationships with outside agencies, including police forces abroad. As much as there is a public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.
In this case, the negatives outweigh any tangible community benefit and therefore the balance does not favour confirmation or denial at this time.
None of the above can be viewed as an inference that the information you seek does or does not exist.
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 15/03/2024)