Custody – Refused Detention (14118_17)

Request

For the past 5 years (2012-2016) & year to date:

  1. The total number of arrests made in your force area.
  2.  Of those arrests the number where detention was declined by a custody officer.
  3. The first necessity criteria (PACE Code G) inputted in the free text field of each declined arrest record.
  4. Other text from the free text field for declined arrests (may contain additional necessity criteria and/or information on reason arrest was declined).

Response

 

We can confirm that information is held by West Midlands Police in respect of this request. Whilst the majority of the information is attached to this response, I am afraid that we are not required by statute to release all of the information requested. For the very small amount of information that has not been released, this serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

Please see the attached file. This file contains a small amount of redactions and the explanation for this can be found underneath ‘Reasons for Decision.’

Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented in the attachment are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from a number of data sources used by forces for police purposes. The detail collected to respond specifically to your request is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when interpreting those data.

The figures provided therefore are our best interpretation of relevance of data to your request, but you should be aware that the collation of figures for ad hoc requests may have limitations and this should be taken into account when those data are used.

If you decide to write an article / use the enclosed data we would ask you to take into consideration the factors highlighted in this document so as to not mislead members of the public or official bodies, or misrepresent the relevance of the whole or any part of this disclosed.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Freedom of Information Act places two responsibilities on public authorities, the first of which is to confirm what information it holds and secondly to then disclose that information, unless exemptions apply.

In this case, the information that has been redacted is exempt by virtue of:

  • Section 30(1) – Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities
  • Section 40(2) – (Personal data)

These exemptions and explanatory notes are shown here:

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/information-management/freedom-of-information/#freedom-of-information-exemptions

Section 40(2) allows for information to be withheld where release would breach the third party’s data protection rights. It would be unfair to release this information where any person could be identified from the data and in this case, the right to privacy outweighs any public interest in release. As this exemption is class based I am not required to identify the harm in disclosure and in this instance, I believe that the right to privacy outweighs any public interest in release.

In line with Section 30 above, I am required to complete a Prejudice Test/Public Interest Test (PIT) on disclosure. Please find this attached

Attachments

14118_17_attachment

14118_17_pit

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed