CCTV Identification (130A/21)
It has been widely reported that PCSO Andy Pope recently achieved his 2000th identification from CCTV:
- How many of these identifications resulted in an offender being brought to justice (charged or cautioned)?
- If you are unable to give that information, is that because your force do not track such identifications?
- If you do not track such identifications, how do you justify not having such a management procedure?
- Please send a copy of the Force policy / SOP / other documents which details how officers and detectives should manage CCTV and identifications from images.
We can confirm that some relevant information is held by West Midlands Police. However, while the majority of the information is attached to this email I am afraid that I am not required to release all of the information requested. Please see below our response and attached (130A_ATTACHMENT_01) along with a redacted Video Evidence Recognition and ID Policy.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The redacted information is exempt by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 40(2) – (Personal Data)
Section 31 (1) (a) (b) (c) (Law enforcement)
These exemptions and explanatory notes are shown here:
In line with the above, I am required to complete a Prejudice Test/Public Interest Test (PIT) on disclosure. Please find this PIT attached [130A_PIT_01].
Section 40(2) is an absolute and class based exemption if to release the information exists would breach the third party’s data protection rights. In this case to release this personal information would not constitute fair processing of the data. 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.