BMW X5 vehicle usage 1155/2025
FOI Reference: 1155/2025
Request:
1 - Between 2015-2025 How many marked operational BMW X5’s did the force utilise and if you no longer do when where they taken out of service ?
2 - Between 2015-2025 how many of those BMW X5’s contained the N57 engine
3 - Between 2015-2025 how many PVI’s involved a marked BMW X5
4- Between 2015-2025 how many officers suffered injuries as part of those PVI’s
5 - Between 2015-2025 how was the marked BMW X5 utilised ? Was it used for firearms only or was the BMW X5 used as a dual role between firearms and RPU
6 - Between 2015-2025 does your force allow BMW X5’s to be utilised in TPAC tactics
7 - If your force no longer utilises BMW X5’s for TPAC tactics what date did this come into force
Response 1 – 4 :
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold some information in respect of the historic use of these vehicles, however, this information has been exempted by virtue of the following 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.
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. The general public are also aware that modern day policing is intelligence led and that there are changes on a day to day basis. Disclosure of historic information in respect questions 1 – 4 i.e. detailed fleet information on BMW X5s, including engine variants such as the N57, would provide criminals with a tactical advantage by revealing operational capabilities and specialist resources. Disclosure could enable offenders exploit known vulnerabilities (e.g., performance limits or failure risks) and use this knowledge to adapt tactics to evade detection or destroy evidence not only within this force but also throughout the country. Additionally, it would compromise covert policing and allow hostile actors to identify unmarked or specialist vehicles. Additionally, it would increase the risk of police impersonation, particularly where decommissioned vehicles are sold at auction, and could lead to misuse of residual equipment or reverse-engineering of security systems. These risks would undermine law enforcement effectiveness and negatively impact public safety by placing individuals at risk. This in turn would or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
Section 31 - Considerations favouring disclosure:
Disclosure of the requested historic information would lead to better public awareness on how police forces maintain appropriate vehicles and resources to deliver services effectively. It could also demonstrate that public funds are being used responsibly and that vehicles are fit for purpose.
Section 31 - Considerations favouring non-disclosure:
To release historic detailed fleet information on BMW X5s, including engine variants such as the N57, would provide criminals with a tactical advantage by revealing operational capabilities and specialist resources. Disclosure could enable offenders to exploit known vulnerabilities (e.g., performance limits or failure risks) and adapt tactics to evade detection or destroy evidence. It would compromise covert policing and allow hostile actors to identify unmarked or specialist vehicles. Additionally, it would increase the risk of police impersonation, particularly where decommissioned vehicles are sold at auction, and could lead to misuse of residual equipment or reverse-engineering of security systems. These risks would undermine law enforcement effectiveness and negatively impact public safety.
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, 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. While there is a public interest in transparency and accountability, this does not outweigh the substantial risk of harm caused by disclosure. Publishing historic detailed fleet specifications—such as the make, model, or engine variant of vehicles used—would enable those with criminal or hostile intent to build a mosaic picture of police capabilities, evade detection, and exploit vulnerabilities. Therefore, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
...
In addition to the above, Dyfed Powys police force can neither confirm nor deny, that it holds any other information in respect of questions 1 – 4 by virtue of the following exemptions:
S24(2) – National Security
S31(3) – Law Enforcement
Both exemptions are 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.
Evidence of Harm:
To confirm or deny whether information is held in relation to specific makes, models, or engine variants (such as BMW’s N57) would be of intelligence value to individuals or groups with criminal or malicious intent seeking to gather intelligence for their aims. While some makes and models are visible on public roads, publishing a ready-collated list of fleet details—including technical specifications like engine type—provides a far greater level of insight than is realistically accessible to the public at any one time.
Access to this information would allow offenders to identify specialist vehicles (e.g., Armed Response or Roads Policing Units) and adapt tactics to evade or target them. It could also enable exploitation of known vulnerabilities (such as high-speed failure risks associated with certain engine types), compromising operational safety. It would compromise covert operations by making unmarked vehicles easier to identify; exploit post-service risks, as many police vehicles are sold at auction; and allow impersonation or misuse of residual equipment.
Furthermore, technical disclosure could facilitate reverse engineering of security systems and performance characteristics, enabling offenders to study ex-police vehicles and apply that knowledge to bypass or exploit active fleet systems. It would also help build a national mosaic picture of fleet composition and operational strength, undermining law enforcement capability. Where forces rely heavily on specific makes, models, or connected engine platforms, disclosure amplifies systemic cyber risk: a successful attack on a manufacturer could simultaneously compromise large portions of law enforcement capability, expose vehicles to remote exploitation, and leak sensitive telematics data. These outcomes would critically undermine emergency response, disrupt policing operations, and jeopardise public safety on a national scale.
Public Interest Considerations:
Factors favouring confirmation or denial information is held S24 National Security:
We appreciate the importance of the public being informed on how public money is being spent, and any generated income on fleet procurements. Confirming whether any other information regarding police vehicles is held such as the BMW X5’s by displaying openness would increase public confidence and allow for better informed public debate on resource allocations.
Factors favouring not confirming or denying information is held S24 National Security:
To confirm or deny whether any other information is held risks prejudicing national security. Detailed fleet information on BMW X5s, including engine variants such as the N57, could assist hostile actors in targeting law enforcement vehicles, undermining national security. Knowledge of makes, models, and technical specifications could enable cyberattacks on manufacturers or connected fleets, creating vulnerabilities in emergency response and critical infrastructure. Furthermore, disclosure could facilitate reverse engineering of security systems and performance characteristics, significantly increasing the risk of exploitation by organised crime or terrorist groups.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial information is held S31 Law Enforcement:
To confirm or deny whether any other information is held would lead to better public awareness on how police forces maintain appropriate vehicles and resources to deliver services effectively. It could also demonstrate that public funds are being used responsibly and that vehicles are fit for purpose.
Factors favouring not confirming or denying information is held S31 Law Enforcement:
To confirm or deny whether any other information is held by releasing detailed fleet information on BMW X5s, including engine variants such as the N57, would provide criminals with a tactical advantage by revealing operational capabilities and specialist resources. Disclosure could enable offenders to exploit known vulnerabilities (e.g., performance limits or failure risks) and adapt tactics to evade detection or destroy evidence. It would compromise covert policing and allow hostile actors to identify unmarked or specialist vehicles. Additionally, it would increase the risk of police impersonation, particularly where decommissioned vehicles are sold at auction, and could lead to misuse of residual equipment or reverse-engineering of security systems. These risks would undermine law enforcement effectiveness and negatively impact public safety.
Balance Test:
The security of the country is of paramount importance, and the Police Service will not divulge information if doing so would place public safety at risk, undermine national security, or compromise law enforcement. While there is a public interest in transparency and accountability, this does not outweigh the substantial risk of harm caused by disclosure. Publishing detailed fleet specifications—such as the make, model, or engine variant of vehicles used—would enable those with criminal or hostile intent to build a mosaic picture of police capabilities, evade detection, and exploit vulnerabilities. This risk extends beyond law enforcement tactics to national security: aggregated data could assist organised crime or hostile actors in targeting specialist vehicles, exploiting cyber vulnerabilities, and undermining emergency response at scale. Such outcomes would compromise policing operations, increase risks to officers and the public, and require significant resources to counteract the harm. Therefore, disclosure is not in the public interest. No inferences should be drawn as a result of this response as to whether information is or is not held.
Response 5 – 7:
Dyfed Powys can neither confirm nor deny, that it holds in respect of questions 5, 6 & 7 of your request by virtue of the following exemptions:
S24(2) – National Security
S31(3) – Law Enforcement
Both exemptions are 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
Evidence of Harm:
To confirm or deny whether information is held in relation to specific makes, models, or engine variants (such as BMW’s N57) would be of intelligence value to individuals or groups with criminal or malicious intent seeking to gather intelligence for their aims. While some makes and models are visible on public roads, publishing a ready-collated list of fleet details—including technical specifications like engine type—provides a far greater level of insight than is realistically accessible to the public at any one time.
Access to this information would allow offenders to identify specialist vehicles (e.g., Armed Response or Roads Policing Units) and adapt tactics to evade or target them. It could also enable exploitation of known vulnerabilities (such as high-speed failure risks associated with certain engine types), compromising operational safety. It would compromise covert operations by making unmarked vehicles easier to identify; exploit post-service risks, as many police vehicles are sold at auction; and allow impersonation or misuse of residual equipment.
Furthermore, technical disclosure could facilitate reverse engineering of security systems and performance characteristics, enabling offenders to study ex-police vehicles and apply that knowledge to bypass or exploit active fleet systems. It would also help build a national mosaic picture of fleet composition and operational strength, undermining law enforcement capability. Where forces rely heavily on specific makes, models, or connected engine platforms, disclosure amplifies systemic cyber risk: a successful attack on a manufacturer could simultaneously compromise large portions of law enforcement capability, expose vehicles to remote exploitation, and leak sensitive telematics data. These outcomes would critically undermine emergency response, disrupt policing operations, and jeopardise public safety on a national scale.
Public Interest Considerations:
Factors favouring confirmation or denial information is held s24 National Security:
We appreciate the importance of the public being informed on how public money is being spent, and any generated income on fleet procurements. Confirming whether information regarding police vehicles is held such as the BMW X5’s by displaying openness would increase public confidence and allow for better informed public debate on resource allocations.
Factors favouring not confirming or denying information is held s24 National Security:
To confirm or deny whether information is held risks prejudicing national security. Detailed fleet information on BMW X5s, including engine variants such as the N57, could assist hostile actors in targeting law enforcement vehicles, undermining national security. Knowledge of makes, models, and technical specifications could enable cyberattacks on manufacturers or connected fleets, creating vulnerabilities in emergency response and critical infrastructure. Furthermore, disclosure could facilitate reverse engineering of security systems and performance characteristics, significantly increasing the risk of exploitation by organised crime or terrorist groups.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial information is held s31 Law Enforcement:
To confirm or deny whether information is held would lead to better public awareness on how police forces maintain appropriate vehicles and resources to deliver services effectively. It could also demonstrate that public funds are being used responsibly and that vehicles are fit for purpose.
Factors favouring not confirming or denying information is held s31 Law Enforcement:
To confirm or deny whether information is held by releasing detailed fleet information on BMW X5s, including engine variants such as the N57, would provide criminals with a tactical advantage by revealing operational capabilities and specialist resources. Disclosure could enable offenders to exploit known vulnerabilities (e.g., performance limits or failure risks) and adapt tactics to evade detection or destroy evidence. It would compromise covert policing and allow hostile actors to identify unmarked or specialist vehicles. Additionally, it would increase the risk of police impersonation, particularly where decommissioned vehicles are sold at auction, and could lead to misuse of residual equipment or reverse-engineering of security systems. These risks would undermine law enforcement effectiveness and negatively impact public safety.
Balance Test:
The security of the country is of paramount importance, and the Police Service will not divulge information if doing so would place public safety at risk, undermine national security, or compromise law enforcement. While there is a public interest in transparency and accountability, this does not outweigh the substantial risk of harm caused by disclosure. Publishing detailed fleet specifications—such as the make, model, or engine variant of vehicles used—would enable those with criminal or hostile intent to build a mosaic picture of police capabilities, evade detection, and exploit vulnerabilities. This risk extends beyond law enforcement tactics to national security: aggregated data could assist organised crime or hostile actors in targeting specialist vehicles, exploiting cyber vulnerabilities, and undermining emergency response at scale. Such outcomes would compromise policing operations, increase risks to officers and the public, and require significant resources to counteract the harm. Therefore, disclosure is not in the public interest.
No inferences should be drawn as a result of this response as to whether information is or is not held.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 05/01/2026)
|
Os oes angen y wybodaeth yma arnoch yn Gymraeg, cysylltwch â: If you require this information in Welsh, please contact: |