Thank you for your requests for information, received 01 March 2109 and 27 February 2019.
1. Please provide a copy of the Service Level Agreement between WMP and CPS West Midlands; as is specifically referred to on page 4 of the Project Quartz April 2009 policy and which is also referenced in the response to question 3 of FOI 12281-17.
2. In the West Midlands Police and West Midlands Crown Prosecution Service Joint Policy Statement, as it appears on page 4 of the Project Quartz (April 2009) Rape and Serious Sexual Assault policy, are the words “everything possible” objectively stated in their ordinary meaning?
3. Within the Project Quartz April 2009 policy, or any other CPS Policy (that was in effect between 2014 and 2016), and for the subjective understanding of the reader, are there any tables, lists, explanations and/ or examples as to the specific objective meaning of “everything possible”? If so, please provide copies of the specific contemporaneous policy and or guidance documents (in effect between 2014 and 2016), in which they are specifically contained.
4. At section 3.1.1 within the Project Quartz April 2009 policy, and for the subjective understanding of the reader, are there any tables, lists, explanations and/ or examples (in any contemporaneous policy or guidance document – in effect between 2009 and 2016), as to the specifically incurred “obligations”? If so, please provide copies of the policies and or guidance documents in which they are specifically contained.
Using the following as an example grid,
ETHNICITY 2010 TOTALS 2011 TOTALS 2012 TOTALS etc¿
African-Caribbean M: F:
Arab M: F:
Asian M: F:
Chinese M: F:
Dark European M: F:
Oriental M: F:
White Skinned European M: F:
Other M: F:
Not Known M: F:
Please provide the totals (by year), of West Midlands Detected Crime (Offence Group: Sexual Offences) by ethnicity and gender; between 1 March 2009 and 1 March 2019.
The information requested above is exempt by virtue of S14 (1) (Vexatious Requests). Section 14 (1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request if that request is deemed to be vexatious. To determine whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption a number of factors have been taken into consideration. These have been outlined below.
The context and history of the request has been taken into consideration when making a decision as to whether Section 14 applies.
Since 07 January 2019, you have submitted 12 requests relating to sexual offences, Sexual Offences Policy and evidence/perjury/complaints, some of which are repeated requests.
Your request for 4440/19 is a repeat of 2333/19 where a response was provided on 26 February 2019.
Request 4987/19 is a repeat of request 4578/19 where a response was provided on 12 March 2019
FOI ref 3591/19, 3405/19 and 2414/19 were aggregated as they all related to evidence and perjury
Below is a history of your most recent requests
Request Reference Date Received Request Subject (Keywords)
004987/19 09/03/2019 Sex Offences
004578/19 02/03/2019 Sex Offences detected crime
004512/19 01/03/2019 Rape and Serious Sexual Assault policy
004440/19 27/02/2019 Sex offences policy
004415/19 27/02/2019 Sexual Offences Policy
004178/19 24/02/2019 RASSO classed offences
003919/19 19/02/2019 Perjury
003591/19 14/02/2019 Type G Complaints
003405/19 12/02/2019 Complaints
002414/19 04/02/2019 evidence/perjury
002333/19 01/02/2019 joint WMP & WMCPS Service Level Agreement
002322/19 31/01/2019 Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Policy
In this case we feel the following indicators apply
Frequent or Overlapping Requests
Burden on the Authority
The indicators outlined in the ICO guidance entitled ‘Dealing with vexatious requests (Section 14)’ have been taken into consideration when establishing whether this request is vexatious. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list, neither does the request have to contain elements of all the indicators outlined.
For these reason I consider this request exempt by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. Any future requests on this or similar topics are also likely to be exempt.
In making this judgement on whether compliance with this request would place a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress I have taken account of Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council and Dransfield. In that Tribunal Judge Wikeley quoted Judge Jacobs in his ruling refusing permission to appeal in Wise v Information Commissioner (GIA/1871/2011; EA/2010/0166):
“Inherent in the policy behind section 14(1) is the idea of proportionality. There must be an appropriate relationship between such matters as the information sought, the purpose of the request, and the time and other resources that would be needed to provide it.”
The fact that there may be a purpose to your request does not necessarily mean the burden is justified. In their guidance the ICO outline a number of practical examples of scenarios where the value of the request might be limited.
The ICO guidance states that “if the authority’s experience of dealing with his previous requests suggests that he won’t be satisfied with any response and will submit numerous follow up enquiries no matter what information is supplied, then this evidence could strengthen any argument that responding to the current request will impose a disproportionate burden on the authority”.