Drones 1123/2024
FOI Reference: 1123/2024
Request
1) The budget of your force.
2) If your force has a dedicated team for drone usage.
3) The number of drones your force possesses.
Drones, as defined by the Civil Aviation Authority, relate to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for the purpose of the above requests.
4) The brand(s) of these drones.
Drones, as defined by the Civil Aviation Authority, relate to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for the purpose of the above requests.
5) The number of cases/situations these drones were deployed in from 2022 to 2023.
Drones, as defined by the Civil Aviation Authority, relate to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for the purpose of the above requests.
6) The types of cases/situations these drones were deployed for.
Drones, as defined by the Civil Aviation Authority, relate to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for the purpose of the above requests.
7) If drones have been deployed in tandem with each other.
Drones, as defined by the Civil Aviation Authority, relate to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for the purpose of the above requests.
8) If the usage of a drone swarm is being researched or otherwise investigated for use.
Drones, as defined by the Civil Aviation Authority, relate to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for the purpose of the above requests.
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
Response Q1
We do not currently have a dedicated budget for drones, so the answer to Q1 is £0.
Response Q2
At this stage there is no dedicated drone unit in place at Dyfed-Powys. Drones operators are primarily dual role and exist within several departments with Roads Policing officers accounting for the vast majority.
Response Q3 & Q4
Section 31(1)(a)(b) exemption applies, (*please see the end of the document for an explanation of the applied exemption)
Response Q5
There were no drone flights in DPP 2022
During 2023 we have 474 drone taskings
Response Q6
Drones are deployed for numerous reasons
- Missing persons
- Suspect searches
- Evidential gathering
- Firearms incidents
- Training and flight currency purposes
- Event monitoring
- Public order incidents
This list is not exhaustive.
Response Q7
No drones have been deployed Tandem
Response Q8
No research currently ongoing.
*Explanation of the applied exemption:
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 Harm Test process requires Dyfed-Powys Police to consider any possible harm that might arise as a result of placing the requested information into the public domain. This process considers the potential harm to:
- Individuals
- The community as a whole
- Dyfed-Powys Police and the wider policing service
- Other bodies
The release of information requested into the manufacturer and model of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) used by Dyfed-Powys Police could reveal the capabilities and methodologies of these assets and give important information to terrorists and criminals. The release of this information combined with detailed information readily available on the internet would allow terrorists and other criminals to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft and they would be able to use information in planning terrorist and criminal acts.
This would therefore both directly and indirectly impact on the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of terrorists and criminals, and increase the fear of crime in the community Dyfed-Powys Police seeks to serve.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring Disclosure
In times of public expenditure cuts the public have an interest in knowing how public money is being spent in ensuring value for money both at the point of purchase and also in respect of what those resources are to be used for.
Factors favouring Non-Disclosure
Disclosure of the make and model of each drone system purchased and the details of the number of drones owned would mean that individuals could research details about them and their capabilities. To disclose these details would highlight the strengths and any possible weaknesses of the equipment would compromise law enforcement tactics which could lead to more crime being committed and individuals being placed at risk. It may also be used by criminals/terrorists in combination with other information they have gathered to try and prejudice law enforcement. .
Balance Test
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. In order to effectively and robustly carry out those duties, external services are utilised which are vital to investigating criminal activity. Weakening the mechanisms used to investigate any type of criminal activity would have a detrimental impact on law enforcement as a whole. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and operations in the highly sensitive areas such as extremism, crime prevention, public disorder and terrorism prevention.
As release of information will highlight operational methodology that in turn will provide terrorists / criminals with counter measures the decision must be made not to release the information sought regarding manufacturer and model of UAVs in service with Dyfed-Powys Police. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that the balance test favours against disclosure.
In addition, Dyfed-Powys Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any further information relating to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 24(2) National Security;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;
Section 23 is an absolute exemptions which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by release and there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.
Sections 24 and 31 are qualified, prejudice based exemptions and require evidence of harm and a public interest test to be carried out.
Evidence of harm
As you will be aware, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the use of drones for covert purposes, would show criminals what the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the force are, allowing them to target specific areas of the UK to conduct their criminal/terrorist activities. Confirming or denying the specific circumstances in which the police service may or may not deploy drones, would lead to an increase of harm to covert investigations and compromise law enforcement. This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.
The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored, and it is well established that police forces use covert tactics and surveillance to gain intelligence in order to counteract criminal behaviour. As such, it has been previously documented in the media that many terrorist incidents have been thwarted due to intelligence gained by these means.
Confirming or denying that Dyfed-Powys Police hold any other information in relation to covert use of drones, or unmanned aerial devices, would limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists would gain a greater understanding of the police forces’ methods and techniques, enabling them to take steps to counter them. It may also suggest the limitations of police capabilities in this area, which may further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by exposing potential vulnerabilities. This detrimental effect is increased if the request is made to several different law enforcement bodies. In addition to the local criminal fraternity now being better informed, those intent on organised crime throughout the UK, will be able to ‘map’ where the use of certain tactics are or are not deployed. This can be useful information to those committing crimes. It would have the likelihood of identifying location-specific operations which would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and future prosecutions as criminals could counteract the measures used against them.
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.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 24
Any further information, if held simply relates to national security and confirming or denying whether it is held would not actually harm it. The public are entitled to know what public funds are spent on and what security measures are in place, and by confirming or denying whether any other information regarding the covert use of drones is held, would lead to a better informed public.
Factors favouring Neither Confirming Nor Denying for Section 24
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would render Security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying whether any other information is held regarding the covert use of drones would provide an insight into Dyfed-Powys Police. This would enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police and about how the police gather intelligence. It would greatly assist in the quality and accuracy of public debate, which could otherwise be steeped in rumour and speculation. Where public funds are being spent, there is a public interest in accountability and justifying the use of public money.
Some information is already in the public domain regarding the police use of this type of specialist equipment and confirming or denying whether any other information is held would ensure transparency and accountability and enable the public to see what tactics are deployed by the Police Service to detect crime.
Factors against Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the covert use of drones for maritime/border surveillance would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and would also hinder any future investigations. In addition, confirming or denying methods used to gather intelligence for an investigation would prejudice that investigation and any possible future proceedings.
It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and terrorists and so to confirm or deny any other information is held concerning specialist covert tactics would lead to law enforcement being undermined. The Police Service is reliant upon all manner of techniques during operations and the public release of any modus operandi employed, if held, would prejudice the ability of the Police Service to conduct similar investigations.
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held in relation to the use of drones would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. The force would not wish to reveal what tactics may or may not have been used to gain intelligence as this would clearly undermine the law enforcement and investigative process. This would impact on police resources and more crime and terrorist incidents would be committed, placing individuals at risk. It can be argued that there are significant risks associated with providing information, if held, in relation to any aspect of investigations or of any nation's security arrangements so confirming or denying that any information is held, may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we may be trying to protect.
Balance test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the police service will not divulge whether any information is or is not held regarding the use of drones if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk, undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that Dyfed-Powys Police is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and all areas of operations carried out by police forces throughout the UK.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The use of drones in any covert capacity is a sensitive issue that would reveal police tactics and therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any information is held regarding the use of drones is not made out.
However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that would meet any future request exists or does not exist.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 10/02/2025)
|
Os oes angen y wybodaeth yma arnoch yn Gymraeg, cysylltwch â: If you require this information in Welsh, please contact: |