Misconduct on social media 1054/2025
FOI Reference: 1054/2025
Request
Please provide the following information for the years 2022, 2023, 2024 and the available information for 2025:
1) The number of police officers that were disciplined for their conduct on WhatsApp and / or other social media sites.
(a) For each disciplined police officer, please describe briefly what happened.
(b) If the police officer was writing offensive messages/posts, please disclose copies of these messages/posts.
(c) If the police officer was sharing offensive posts, please disclose copies of these posts.
2) Please indicate the number of police officers that were dismissed for their conduct on WhatsApp and / or other social media sites.
(a) For each dismissed police officer, please describe briefly what happened.
(b) If the police officer was writing offensive messages/posts, please disclose copies of these messages/posts.
(c) If the police officer was sharing offensive posts, please disclose copies of these posts.
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below:-
Response Q1
2 x Officers were disciplined for their conduct on WhatsApp and / or other social media sites.
- 1 x Received 18mth written warning in 2022
-
- Officer participated in a WhatsApp group, sending and receiving discriminatory and offensive material
1 x Received 5yr final written warning in 2025
-
- Officer made offensive and discriminatory comments on Twitter/ X
Response Q2
1 x Officer
- Dismissed in 2025
-
- Officer participated in a WhatsApp group, sending and receiving offensive and discriminatory material
Response Q1 (b & c) & Q2 (b & c)
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information that you have requested. However, we are withholding some of the information since we consider that the following exemptions apply to it:
Section 40(2) Personal Information
Section 38(1)(a) Health & Safety
Section 40 is an absolute class-based exemption and therefore there is no requirement to conduct a harm or public interest test.
Section 38 is a prejudice based qualified exemptions and as such there is a requirement to articulate the harm and conduct a test of the public interest in confirmation or denial.
Section 40(2) Personal Information:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested; however, we are exempting part of that information as we believe that the following exemptions are relevant:
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 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:
“(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 details would lead to the identification of the individuals involved. 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.
Section 38(1)(a) Health & Safety:
- Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to –
(a) Endanger the physical or mental health of any individual,
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 due to the nature of the specific information requested.
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 cause physical or mental harm to the health of the officers involved, which have been dealt with appropriately through the misconduct procedure.
Public Interest Test
Considerations favouring disclosure –
Disclosure of the information would lead to better informed public awareness on how the police conduct investigations and the use of public funds ensuring transparency in the activities of the public authority especially Police misconduct investigations, where some information is already in the public domain.
Considerations favouring non-disclosure –
Disclosure of the requested information could lead to the identification of individuals which would jeopardise the safety of any identified individual. This could expose them to attention from the criminal fraternity who may seek to cause them physical harm and disclosure of the information would be likely to affect the mental health of the officers. Disclosure of the information would cause significant distress to the individuals involved, through resurfacing memories of the disciplinary process, when the matter has now been dealt with.
Balance 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 and health and safety of individuals.
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.
Therefore, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 21/11/2025)
|
Os oes angen y wybodaeth yma arnoch yn Gymraeg, cysylltwch â: If you require this information in Welsh, please contact: |