Officer Misconduct (1721A/22)
1, How many of your officers (excluding staff and volunteers) are currently (as of 22 Dec 2022) on restricted duties or suspended due to ongoing misconduct cases against them
2, How many officers (excluding staff and volunteers) your force has dismissed for gross misconduct in each calendar year: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022
3, The number of your officers and staff (excluding volunteers) who in the period 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2022 faced:
a) two misconduct cases
b) three to five misconduct cases
c) six or more misconduct cases
4, How many of all those in Q3 (ie, all those named in multiple misconduct cases between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2022) are still serving as of 22 Dec 2022.
5, For each of those in Q3c (with six or more misconduct cases against them), how many misconduct cases they faced, a brief description of the allegations against them, and whether they are still serving as of 22 Dec 2022.
Our data are not organised in such a way as to allow us to provide all of this information within the appropriate (cost) limit within the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act (see ‘Reason for Decision’ below).
However, 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 (see attached 1721A_22_attachment.pdf). 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.
We want our officers to uphold the highest of standards so the public has the utmost confidence in them. We are committed to rooting out abuse of power, criminality and corruption whenever we find evidence of it.
REASON FOR DECISION
Regarding question 2, data prior to 2020 is not captured on our Professional Standards Department ‘Centurion’ system and as a result, in order to accurately determine how many officers had been dismissed for gross misconduct in each calendar year from 2013 would require a manual search of records. Such a search however would exceed the appropriate limit (FOIA, s.12).
In addition and regarding question 3. Accurate data is also not easily retrievable without conducting a manual search of records, which would similarly exceed the appropriate limit (FOIA, s.12).
This means that the cost of compliance with the whole 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 would exceed the appropriate costs limit under section 12(1) of the FOI 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.
Further information on section 12 of FOI is available here.