Misconduct reports 895/2025
FOI Reference: 895/2025
Request
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would like to request the following information:
- All full misconduct outcome reports (the written findings, reasoning, decision notices, or panel reports) for hearings held in the past four months (please specify as: May, June, July, and August 2025).
- If any such hearings were held but no outcome report was published, I request all recorded explanations or internal communications that clarify why the outcome report was not published.
- If Dyfed Powys Police,e hold no such reports for any of those months, please confirm that no relevant recorded information is held.
Thank you for your assistance. Please do provide any advice or clarification regarding your publication policy for these reports.
Response:
Q1
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 below exemptions are relevant:
During the months of May-August 2025, there was 1 misconduct hearing conducted, however proceedings were vacated and have been re-scheduled for March 2026.
The matter is a live misconduct investigation and therefore subject to the following exemptions:-
Section 31(1)(g) subsection 2(b) – Law Enforcement exemption.
Section 40(2) Personal Information
Please see below explanations of the applied exemptions.
Q2
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does not hold the information requested.
In relation to the hearing referred to in response to Q1, the outcome report was not published, as directed by the chair of the misconduct hearing (under regulation 39 of the Police misconduct regulations 2020) as it would prejudice the future hearing in March 2026.
There is no recorded explanation in relation to this, it was a verbal direction from the chair following the vacation of the initial misconduct hearing.
Q3
Not Applicable
Explanation for the applied exemptions:
Section 31(1)(g) subsection 2(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 31 is a prejudiced-based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused by disclosing the information, as well as carrying 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.
Overall Harm:
In this particular case the requestor has requested under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, information in relation to complaint/misconduct investigations. To disclose the details/information that has been recorded for the purpose of live complaint/misconduct investigation would or would be likely to prejudice the force of its function in relation to Law Enforcement. This would have an adverse effect not only on the force but also on any individual(s) involved.
Public Interest Test:
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 complaint/misconduct investigations 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.
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.
Effective Law Enforcement is the core function of the police service and is of paramount importance. The Force has a duty to ensure that it does not disclose information that would undermine or compromise its approach to law enforcement; which would result in live complaint/misconduct investigation being prejudiced and an individual’s right to a fair trial being undermined and the force failing in adhering to the policing purpose. In this case there would be no tangible community benefit by the release of the information which is the main focus in considering the public interest
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:
“(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…
2. 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 individuals. In this particular case, to release information in relation to complaint/ misconduct investigations would lead to the identification of individuals. To release such information would be a direct breach of Data Protection legislation i.e. the first data protection principle and 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 and 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.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 20/10/2025)
|
Os oes angen y wybodaeth yma arnoch yn Gymraeg, cysylltwch â: If you require this information in Welsh, please contact: |