Lessons learned from complaints 453/2022
FOI Reference: 453/2022
Request 1 - 6:
1) Since 1 February 2018 – 31 January 2020 the number of lessons learned recorded on Centurion.
Please also provide a table with the following information:
- the category the learning has been captured in on Centurion, from the type field.
- the data captured in the outcome field (action taken).
- the date recorded
- the date completed
- the data in the action taken field
2) Since 1 February 2020 – 31 January 2022 the number of lessons learned recorded on Centurion.
Please also provide a table with the following information:
- the category the learning has been captured in on Centurion, from the type field.
- the data captured in the outcome field (action taken).
- the date recorded
- the date completed
- the data in the action taken field
3) Please advise how your force tracks and monitors any learning identified from complaints and conduct.
4) Please advise if your identified lessons from complaints and conduct are discussed / disseminated at any Organisational Learning Board (or similar).
5) How many officers or police staff have been via the RPRP process as a resolution to a complaint since 1 February 2020
6) How many officers or police staff have been via the RPRP process as a resolution to a conduct investigation since 1 February 2020
Response:
I am writing to inform you that pursuant to the provision of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) I have decided to refuse your request 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 whether 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 273 lessons learned entries within Centurion, containing information relating to departments across the force. Prior to disclosing the requested information, each ‘action taken’ column would require reviewing, line by line, in order to establish whether or not there are any concerns with disclosing the contents detailed on each record. This is due to the fact that some of the information contained within will be sensitive/harmful to disclose to the public and would attract exemptions, such as but not limited to, Section 31 (Law Enforcement) and where exemptions apply the information would need to be redacted.
To review all 273 entries, and to redact where necessary would be a time consuming task and it would be a burden on the force to undertake. This is due to the fact that the Freedom of Information (FOI) Decision Maker would firstly be required to liaise with the Police Standards Department (PSD)/police officer, to consider their views on disclosure in relation to the information concerning the case (as the case may be ongoing). The FOI Decision Maker would then need to review and understand the content of every page and take into consideration all of the concerns raised in order to make the decision on whether exemptions apply, for example exemptions such as but not limited to, Section 31 (Law Enforcement) or Section 40 (Personal Information), and where exemptions apply, the information would need to be redacted. As there is missing data in the ‘Date Completed’ field, a full review of all cases which are not recorded as complete would need to be carried out in order to ascertain if the case is complete or ongoing.
It has been estimated that to review and to take into account the necessary considerations under the FOI Act would take a minimum of 10 minutes per entry, which would equate to 45.5 hours. To undertake this task would require a Decision Maker within the FOI Unit to be abstracted from normal duties for approximately 6.3 working days in order to provide an FOI compliant response in respect of this request. This does not take into account the amount of time it would take other police officers/staff outside of the FOI Unit away from their duties, to liaise with the FOI Unit regarding the information relevant to their responsibility.
As at 15/07/2022 there are currently 554 FOI requests logged within the Disclosure Unit and 89 of those FOI requests are currently open requests awaiting completion and this does not include all of the other areas of work in which the Disclosure Unit covers i.e. Court Orders, Subject Access Requests etc. There are currently 2.5 Full Time Employed 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 Disclosure Unit, which would significantly undermine the units other obligations in the processing of the 89 open FOI requests and other disclosure work. There are also 22 requests that are currently overdue.
Although there is no doubting the 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.
It should be noted that as a result of the systems adopted by Dyfed-Powys Police in relation to the recording of such information that the information released may or may not be accurate.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 15/07/2022)