Misuse of body worn video 498/2022
FOI Reference: 498/2022
Request:
1/ All records of mis-use or incorrect use of body worn video over the last four years (from January 1st 2018 to the date this response is answered), providing the year of the incident and a description of the mis-use (e.g. the camera was turned off by an officer). If the force does not collect these records, please state why it does not scrutinise use of this policing tool.
2/ All records of any known complaints made about mis-use or incorrect use of body worn video over the last four years (from January 1st 2018 to the date this response is answered), providing the year of the incident, description and complaint (e.g. video turned off or video not turned on).
3/ All records of all misconduct cases against officers for mis-use or incorrect use of body worn video over the last four years (from January 1st 2018 to the date this response is answered), providing the year of the incident, description of the mis-use and reason for misconduct, and misconduct outcome and investigatory body (e.g. management advice by PSD).
Response 1 and 2:
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 the cost of determining whether any information relative to this request is or isn’t held is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond therefore we are withholding the whole of the requested information since we consider that the Section 12 (2) exemption the Cost of Compliance exceeds the Appropriate Limit applies to it.
Section 12 (2) – The cost of compliance exceeds the Appropriate Limit
Section 12(2) states: “…Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that paragraph alone 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 30.08 hours) to comply with this part of your request. The regulations can be located @
www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043244.htm
The Freedom of Information Unit has been advised that the information requested in relation to your request regarding mis-use or incorrect use of body worn video from 1st January 2018 to 20th June 2022 is not held in an easily retrievable format and would exceed the appropriate time limit, i.e. 18 hours, to retrieve.
This is due to the fact that mis-use or incorrect use of body worn video is not a category used in the police complaints process. Therefore an individual interrogation of all allegations recorded during the specified time period, would be required in order to establish the information requested.
In order to do this, it is estimated it would take approximately 30 seconds to review each record, of which there are 3610 for the time period given.
The relevant time estimate is detailed below:
3610 records x 30 seconds = 30.08 hours
Therefore, total time estimate to complete request = 30.08 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 some 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.
Response 3:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys police does hold information in relation to your request, there have been zero(0) records of misconduct against officers for mis-use or incorrect use of body worn video over the last 4 years.
This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on the 18th July 2022.