1. Please provide or describe any policies, procedures, guidelines or standard operational practices which dictate or otherwise influence the decision as to which officers or investigative staff interview child suspects.
(An `interview’ is defined in paragraph 11.1A of Code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984: `An interview is the questioning of a person regarding their involvement or suspected involvement in a criminal offence or offences which, under paragraph 10.1, must be carried out under caution. A `child’ is a person aged between 10-17 years old. A `suspect¿ is a person who is interviewed under paragraph 11.1A).
2. Is it mandatory for a person interviewing a child suspect to have a minimum level of training? What is that level e.g. Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 or other?
3. What proportion of interviews of child suspects are conducted by officers with Tier 1 training within the last 12 months or other recent timeframe?
4. What proportion of interviews of child suspects are conducted by officers with Tier 2 training within the last 12 months or other recent timeframe?
5. What proportion of interviews of child suspects are conducted by officers with Tier 3 training within the last 12 months or other recent timeframe?
Our data are not organised in such a way as to allow us to provide this information. For questions 3, 4 and 5 this information is not recorded in a searchable format.
Please note that researching each individual case would exceed the appropriate limit (FOIA, s.12 (1)).
Therefore, the cost of compliance with your request is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond, i.e. the cost of locating and retrieving the information would exceed the appropriate costs limit under section 12 of the Freedom of information Act 2000. For West Midlands Police, the appropriate limit is set at £450, as prescribed by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, S.I. 3244.
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. In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a refusal notice.
Although excess cost removes the force’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, as a gesture of goodwill I have supplied information, relative to your request, retrieved 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 the request.