Officers on suspension 140/24
FOI Reference: 140/2024
Request 1 - 4:
- The number of police officers that are currently suspended from duties
- The ranks of the suspended officers (e.g. Police Constable, Sergeant, Inspector etc.)
- The length of time each officer has been suspended as of the date you respond to this request
- The reasons for suspension in each case (in broad categories such as gross misconduct, criminal investigation etc.) without naming individual officers
Response:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested; however we are exempting some of the information as we believe that the following exemptions are relevant:
Section 31(1)(g) Subsection 2(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2) – Personal Information
Section 31 exemptions are prejudice-based qualified exemptions. There is therefore a requirement to carry out a HARM Test in respect of such information and 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.
Overall Harm:
Any release under the Freedom of Information Act is a disclosure to the world, not just to the individual making the request. To disclose the requested information could lead to the identification of the individuals involved, which in turn would compromise any relevant ongoing investigations.
The Police Service also has a duty of care to force employees and if any individuals were to be identified from the disclosure of information, this could affect the mental wellbeing of those individuals and could put the individuals at risk of physical harm from vigilante type behaviour.
Public Interest Test
Section 31(1)(g) Subsection 2(b) – Law Enforcement:
“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:
(g) The exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in section (2).
(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(g) to (i) are
(b) The purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper.”
Factors favouring disclosure:
Disclosure of the information would provide a better awareness which may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public as well as provide transparency and satisfaction to the public that such investigations are conducted properly.
Factors favouring non-disclosure:
To release the requested information would undermine and compromise the authorities approach to law enforcement in relation to the ongoing investigation of such matters as a consequence of which the investigation would be prejudiced and an individual’s right to a fair trial would be undermined. This in turn would hinder the prevention and detection of crime thereby placing individuals at risk.
Overall 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 release, which is public awareness, needs to be weighed against the strongest argument for non-release which in this case is effective law enforcement.
The Police Service is tasked with the prevention and detection of crime and protecting the public and employees. Whilst there is a public interest in better awareness and openness of police currently suspended for misconduct, there is a very strong public interest in reducing crime and the effective use of police resources. Public safety is of paramount importance and the police service will not divulge information if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or compromise an ongoing investigation. There is also a strong public interest in ensuring the personal safety of police employees and effective law enforcement is maintained. The duty of care owed to these individuals has to be the overriding consideration.
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 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:This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
“(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
- Processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency);
- 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 requested information, given the fact that it relates to investigations that are ongoing on a particular day, would lead to the identification of those individuals. To release such information would be a direct breach of Data Protection legislation as a consequence I am satisfied that Section 40(2) Personal Information exemption is applicable to the release of the information.
The Section 40 exemption is a class-based 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.
The Section 40 exemption is in part qualified and in part absolute, 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 1:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
A total of 5 police officers are currently suspended.
Response 2:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
|
Police Officers suspended for Misconduct dated 06.02.2024 |
|
|
Police Constable |
4 |
|
Supervising Ranks (Sgt and Above) |
1 |
Please note: I have decided that to provide correlated data could identify individuals, as our data returned low numbers.
I have made the decision to disclose the information you are seeking, however, due to extremely low figures, I am unable to breakdown the data to the level you are seeking. This is because extremely low figures have been located in relation to some ranks and some suspension periods.
To reduce the risk with disclosure, I have provided uncorrelated data. I have therefore decided to provide a total number for constables, and a separate total figure for officers at the rank of sergeant and above.
Response 3
|
Length of Suspension |
|
Section 31(1)(g) Subsection 2(b) – Law Enforcement Section 40(2) – Personal Information |
Response 4:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
All are subject to misconduct investigations at present or are in the process of being referred to misconduct proceedings.
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 08/03/2024)