Racial and religious hate crimes 397/2026

FOI Reference: 397/2026

Request:

I am requesting the following information under the Freedom of Information Act, based on the police force’s response to question 9 of my previous request 970/2025:

1. Details of all racial hate crimes reported since the start of January 2022, including (where available/applicable):

1. Reported date
2. Start date
3. End date
4. Concluded date
5. Ethnicity of victim
6. Ethnicity of suspect/accused/perpetrator
7. Location of the offence (the more specific the better)
8. Summary (and/or details) of the offence (what was reported to have happened etc)
9. Outcome (where applicable)

2. Details of all religious hate crimes reported since the start of January 2022, including (where available/applicable):

1. Reported date
2. Start date
3. End date
4. Concluded date
5. Religion of victim
6. Ethnicity of suspect/accused/perpetrator
7. Location of the offence (the more specific the better)
8. Summary (and/or details) of the offence (what was reported to have happened etc)
9. Outcome (where applicable)

Response 1:

I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold some of the information requested, the details of which are as follows:

Please note: There are instances whereby some dates in points a, b, c & d may have been recorded incorrectly.

• For the period covering 01/01/2022 – 30/09/25 there were a total of 1,351 racial hate crimes recorded.

A – G & I: Please see the attached excel spreadsheet named 397.2026 Racial hate crimes

H: Section 14(1) applies (please see the end of the document for an explanation of the applied exemption).

Response 2:

I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold some of the information requested, the details of which are as follows:

• For the period covering 01/01/2022 – 30/09/25 there were a total of 151 religious hate crimes recorded.

A – G & I: Please see the attached excel spreadsheet named 397.2026 Religious hate crimes

H: Section 14(1) applies (please see the end of the document for an explanation of the applied exemption).

Explanation of the applied exemption:

Pursuant to the provision of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) I have decided to refuse your request relating to question H, as it has been deemed to be a ‘Vexatious Request.’ 

Section 14(1) – Vexatious requests of the Act provides: 

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious. 

I have taken cognisance of the Information Commissioners guidance on Vexatious requests which can be found at:  

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf 

First and foremost when considering whether to make a request for information ‘Vexatious’ consideration has been given to the ICO Guidance in relation to vexatious requests (section 14) which stipulates what the ICO expects from a public authority when considering section 14(1). Gathering evidence in order to identify a developing pattern of behaviour is an important factor as well as the context and history in which a request is made will often be a major factor in determining whether the request is vexatious. The public authority will need to consider the wider circumstances surrounding the request before making a decision as to whether section 14 (1) applies. 

ICO guidance on the subject states: 

‘Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme of circumstances. 

In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request. The public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant.’ 

Accordingly, I have classified this request as vexatious under Section 14(1) by gathering evidence under the following indicators in order to identify that the request is burdensome. 

Burden on the Authority: 

FOI legislation is designed to provide opportunities whereby the public can shine a torch on the decision making and workings of a public authority. However, this does not mean that information has to automatically be disclosed. To do so without some consideration would be reckless and likely to breach other relevant legislation, such as the Data Protection Act (DPA)/General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 

In this particular case, it has been identified that there are a total of 1,502 offence summaries relating to racial and religious hate crimes. Prior to disclosing the requested information, each and every racial and religious hate crime offence summary would need to be reviewed in order to establish whether or not there are any concerns with disclosing the contents. This is due to the fact that information contained within each offence summary maybe sensitive/harmful to disclose to the public and would attract exemptions, such as but not limited to Section 40 (Personal Information), Section 31 (Law Enforcement) and Section 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by Public authorities) and where exemptions apply the information would need to be redacted.   

To review all 1,502 offence summaries and to redact where necessary would be a time consuming task and it would be a burden on the force to undertake this task. This is due to the fact that the Freedom of Information (FOI) Decision Maker would  be required to read through each offence summary individually in order to identify all personal or sensitive data contained within offence summary, in order to make the decision on whether exemptions apply, which exemptions apply, and to which part the exemptions apply to. For example, considerations for Section 40 in relation to any personal data, considerations for Section 31 in relation to any policing details that would compromise law enforcement if disclosed or Section 30 in that would releasing certain details affect or compromise an investigation. Following this process the FOI Decision Maker would then be required to redact any information deemed as sensitive and also draft their response detailing any exemptions being applied, ensuring public interest tests and harm tests are carried out where necessary.  

It has been estimated that to review, take into account the necessary considerations and then complete any required redactions under the FOI Act would take a minimum of 3 minutes for a single offence summary, which in total would equate to 75.10 hours for all 1,502 offence summaries. To undertake this task would require a Decision Maker within the FOI Unit to be abstracted from normal duties for approximately 10 working days in order to provide an FOI compliant response in respect of this matter. 

As at 02/06/26, there are currently 3 FTE Decision Makers dealing with FOI requests and to abstract one of those Decision Makers from normal duties to undertake this one task would be a considerable burden on the Freedom of Information department, which would significantly undermine the units other obligations in the processing of the FOI requests (which as at 02/06/26 there are a total of 75 open FOI requests) and other disclosure work.  Although there is no doubting the legal motives or responsibilities for requesting the said information, it is the opinion of Dyfed-Powys Police that the effort to meet the request will be oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply. 

Additionally in considering the above I also make reference to a previous Decision Notice from the ICO, as outlined by the below link, whereby in similar circumstances the ICO concluded at that time that he accepts that the burden is such that it can be properly categorised as being grossly oppressive and dealing with the request under such circumstances cannot be justified. Accordingly, whilst he considers this case to be finely balanced, the Commissioner finds that section 14(1) has been appropriately applied in this instance.  

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2014/1025456/fs_50539606.pdf 

Conclusion and Decision: 

In considering the aforementioned facts I am satisfied that this request meets the criteria (as outlined below) pursuant to the provision of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 whereby the request is deemed to be ‘vexatious’ as it would pose a substantial burden on the authority. 

Section 14(1) of the Act provides: 

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious. 

Accordingly, I have classified your request as vexatious under Section 14(1) for the reasons as outlined above. 

(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 02/06/2026)