Pro-Palestine protest arrests 827/2025
FOI Reference: 827/2025
Request:
1 - How many people have been arrested by police at or in connection to pro-Palestine protests since the October 7 Attacks in 2023? Please provide the number of people arrested broken down by age.
2 - What offences were these people arrested for? Please include the breakdown of the number of people arrested for each type of offence (e.g. supporting a proscribed organisation, assault on officer, public order offence).
3 - How many people were detained in custody following these arrests? Please provide the breakdown of the number detentions in custody for each type of offence.
4 - How many people were charged with the offence they were arrested for? Please provide the breakdown of the number of people charged for each type of offence/charge.
Response:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
1 arrest. Section s31(1) & s40(2) exemptions apply to the remainder of the request.
Explanation of the applied exemptions:
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 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) State (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested; however we are withholding the information by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2) – Personal Information
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. 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 31 - Evidence of Harm
Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any application for information. We have no doubt that the vast majority of requests made under the Act are legitimate and the applicants do not have any ulterior motives. However, in disclosing information to one applicant, we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested and concerned person automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure, including those who would use the information to gain an advantage over our ability to exercise our core function which is Law Enforcement.
In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, consideration has been given to the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.
The police service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. Disclosure of details relating to ongoing incidents and specific information contained within the MO. of an incident(s) would be invaluable to those with criminal intent, as this would allow offenders to be in a position to determine whether or not Dyfed-Powys Police are aware of their offending and allow them the opportunity to use this knowledge to their own advantage in furthering criminal activity around the force. If those with criminal intent were to use the information to their own advantage it would significantly impact on the core law enforcement function which is the prevention and detection of crime as well as significantly increasing the risk of harm to individuals.
Public Interest Test:
Section 31 - Considerations favouring disclosure:
Factors favouring the disclosure of this information would include better awareness, which may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public.
Section 31 - Considerations favouring non-disclosure:
Factors favouring non-disclosure would be that it would compromise law enforcement tactics and more crime could be committed. Also, the public have a high expectation that any information/intelligence provided to the police will be treated with confidence and anything that places that confidence at risk would undermine the trust that individuals have in the Police. In turn, this could potentially affect Dyfed-Powys Police’s ability to prevent and detect crime, which would have an adverse effect on the safety of the communities it serves.
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 arguments for release, which is better awareness which may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public, 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. Whilst there is a public interest in better awareness, there is very strong public interest in safeguarding the protection of the public and maintaining effective law enforcement.
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 individuals requesting the information and disclosure under the Act must be made with that in mind. As such, any release that identifies any individuals 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 individuals (subject to subsection (14)(c)).
(3) ‘Identifiable living individuals’ means a living individuals 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 individuals.”
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 UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK-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.”
UK - General Data Protection Regulation
Article 5 of the UK-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 any individuals. In this particular case, it is a low number of related data and could therefore lead to the identification of individual(s). To release such information would be a direct breach of Data Protection legislation 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 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 16/09/2025)
|
Os oes angen y wybodaeth yma arnoch yn Gymraeg, cysylltwch â: If you require this information in Welsh, please contact: |