Theft of veterinary sedatives 201/2026

FOI Reference: 201/2026

Request:

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following information for the period 1 January 2023 to present:

1. The number of reported thefts of xylazine and/or medetomidine from veterinary practices, veterinary hospitals, agricultural suppliers, or veterinary pharmaceutical suppliers in your force area.
2. The total quantity (in ml, mg, or number of vials/bottles) of xylazine and/or medetomidine reported stolen in each incident.
3. Any intelligence assessments or reports produced by your force concerning the diversion of veterinary sedatives (xylazine, medetomidine, or other veterinary tranquilizers) into illicit drug markets.
4. The number of arrests made in connection with theft of veterinary sedatives (xylazine, medetomidine) where the suspected motive was diversion to illicit drug supply.
5. Any drug seizures where xylazine and/or medetomidine were detected in substances sold as illicit drugs (heroin, benzodiazepines, opioids, etc.).

Response:

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 the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Dyfed-Powys Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

(a) states that fact,

(b) specifies the exemption 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 you have requested. However, we are withholding the whole of the requested information since we consider that the Section 12(1) exemption the Cost of Compliance exceeds the Appropriate Limit applies to it.

Section 12 (1) – The cost of compliance exceeds the Appropriate Limit

Section 12(1) states: “…Section 1 (1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.”

The cost of providing you with the information requested in respect of your request is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the “appropriate level” as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004. It is estimated that it would exceed 18 hours (i.e. minimum 50 hours) to comply with this part of your request. The regulations can be located @ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244)

The Freedom of Information Department has been advised that the information in relation to question 5 of your request is not held in an easily retrievable format. This information is not currently recorded in a format that data can be pulled from. It would require a manual process of going through individual drugs reports in order to ascertain if there is any information relevant to your request. .

There are approximately 300 records that would require interrogation and it is estimated that it would take 10 minutes to review each record.

300 records x 10 minutes per record – 50 hours.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a Refusal Notice for the WHOLE of this request under Section 17(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is relying on a claim that section 12 or section 14 applies must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that fact.

You may wish to refine and resubmit your request so that it reduces the time shown above to fall within the 18 hours.

Should you require any further advice in relation to this matter please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Please also be advised that should the request be refined, it does not remove the Force’s right to cite exemptions if relevant.

Although excess cost removed the force’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, as a gesture of goodwill, I have supplied information, relative to your request, retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I trust this is helpful, but it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

Goodwill Response 1:

There is no information recorded due to the fact that there are zero (0) recorded thefts of Xylazine and/or Medetomidine recorded in force area during the stated periods and from any of the stated locations.

Goodwill Response 2 – 4:

N/A                                             

(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 20/02/2026)