Animal abuse on social media 649/2022
FOI Reference: 649/2022
Request:
1.For the calendar year 2021, please tell me how many incidents and crimes of animalabuse* you have recorded in which one of the following social media sites was named in the MO and/or the Investigation Summary Field
- TikTok
- YouTube
*By animal abuse, I’m referring to any of the following:
|
Crime type |
Home Office classification |
|
Causing, permitting or failing to prevent unnecessary suffering of protected animal |
97/01 |
|
Carrying out, permitting, causing to be carried out or failing to prevent prohibited procedure on a protected animal |
97/02 |
|
Removing or causing or permitting or failing to prevent removal of dog’s tail other than for medical treatment |
97/03 |
|
Administration of poisons etc to a protected animal |
97/04 |
|
Offences relating to animal fights |
97/05 |
|
Intercourse with an animal by a male |
88/3 |
|
Intercourse with an animal by a female |
88/4 |
|
Possession of extreme pornographic images – person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (dead or alive) |
86/14 |
2. For each social media site, could you please give a sub-total of the number of times they were mentioned in the MO and/or Investigation Summary Field in an animal abuse incident or crime, broken down by Home Office Classification codes?
3. Finally, could you please provide me with copies of the MOs and/or Investigation Summary Fields (depending on what is available) for the ten most recent crimes and incidents identified in the search (excluding any that are subject to ongoing investigation)? Please redact any details that cannot be disclosed for privacy reasons, 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 of 54.50 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 department has been advised that the information in respect of question 1 relating to extreme images under the Home Office classification code of 86/14 as outlined in your request is not held in an easily retrievable format. In light of this and in order to accurately obtain the information relative to this part of the request for the time frame stipulated would involve Dyfed Powys Police accessing and reviewing all obscene publications crime records to obtain the information requested. It has been established that there are a total of 327 obscene publications crime records that cover the period of your request. It has also been established that it would take a minimum of 10 minutes to review and obtain the information for a single crime record in respect of your request (as outlined above). The process outlined results in the below time estimate.
2021 = 327 crime records @ a minimum of 10 minutes per record = 54.50 hours
Time estimate to complete task = 54.50 hours
Please note: A response to the remaining Home Office codes listed in question 1 of your request has been outlined at the end of the document as a gesture of goodwill and outside of the FOI Act.
In accordance therefore 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 the Freedom of Information Unit. Please also be advised that should the request be refined, it does not remove the public authorities right to cite exemptions if relevant.
Although excess cost removes the forces obligations under the Freedom of Information Act to provide any further information, as a gesture of goodwill, I have provided information, relative to question 1 of your request which has been easily retrievable and outlined below. 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.
- There were zero (0) relevant crimes in respect of question 1 of your request for the following Home Office codes: 97/01/, 97/02, 97/03, 97/04, 97/05, 88/3, and 88/4. As a result of this a response to questions two and three of your request is not applicable.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 20/09/22)