Skip to content

PCSO Powers (497A/24)

Request

In relation to this incident published on the West Midland’s Police YouTube channel here:

https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Do8Yau5_DdHE&data=05%7C02%7Cfoi%40westmidlands.police.uk%7C684ae7839f03475529e608dc4675fc75%7C2b0f1af29e024cfb982fc61fd716ee98%7C0%7C0%7C638462719757858835%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Tp1wNwMlcI0PlyZUPMMc0O8kIMAJMfCj0Tcr19IzVM0%3D&reserved=0

I require the following information held by your force in respect of:

A) The value of the compensation awarded to the PCSO for injuries sustained or any other personal injury, public liability or civil claim that may have been settled as a result of this incident.

B) Any accolades, benefits or compensation awarded to the PCSO as a result of the incident.

C) The powers the PCSO was acting under to demand the driver must immobilise his vehicle and remain on the spot under suspicion of possession of cannabis and powers to stop the vehicle from leaving the scene of a private car park.

D) The force’s policy on PCSOs taking action which puts them in harm’s way.

E) The purpose of publishing the incident to YouTube? Is it to warn drivers that they must remain detained by PCSOs if they suspect they are in possession of cannabis? To celebrate the PCSOs actions? Or for some other for some other purpose, if so please state that purpose.

F) Why comments are turned off for the video.

G) When the comments were turned off.

Response

In relation to questions A and B.  West Midlands Police will neither confirm nor deny the existence of any relevant data by virtue of Section 40(5B) – Personal information

This exemption and explanatory notes are shown here:

https://www.college.police.uk/app/information-management/freedom-information#foia-section-40-personal-information

Section 40(5B) is an absolute and class-based exemption if to confirm or deny that the information exists would breach the third party’s data protection rights. In this case to confirm or deny the existence of 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.

No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.

For question D, please see attachment 2, which relates to the relevant section of the PCSO Deployment Policy.

Attachments

497A_ATTACHMENT_02 497A_ATTACHMENT_01