HOME | IMC UK | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Support Us

SouthCoast Indymedia

Sussex Police refuse to reveal costs and numbers involved in EDO MBM demo

halt-edo-mbm | 07.01.2006 12:51 | South Coast

On 13 December 2005 I wrote to Kevin Moore of Sussex Police (  kevin.moore@sussex.pnn.police.uk ) asking two questions about the policing of the EDO MBM demonstration in Brighton on 10 December 2005, under the terms of the FOIA. Here is the response from Brighton Police.

Your Ref:
Our Ref: FOI xxx
Date: 6 January 2005

Contact Name: Tim Mahony
Tel. Extension: 44557
Direct Dial No: 01273 404334


Dear xxx

I write in connection with your request for information dated 13 December concerning policing costs and numbers for a recent protest about EDO. The request was contained in your email addressed to Supt Moore raising other issues which I understand have been replied to separately.

Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested on costs and numbers under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

1. Cost of the policing operation; The cost of providing you with this information is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the “appropriate level” as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004. To explain, the information is not separately compiled for policing purposes. To compile it would require exhaustive searches of paper and electronic records which would divert staff from other duties for what we estimate would be well in excess of the limits set out in the Regulations i.e. the equivalent of £450 in staff time.

2. Numbers employed on the policing operation; Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Sussex Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question; and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The exemption applicable to this information is to be found in Section 31(1) of the Act (Law Enforcement) and is a quailed and prejudice-based exemption. It applies because this information relates to the deployment of officers on a specific operation that, if disclosed, may give an indication of how many officers are employed for operations generally.

HARM TEST;

When applying prejudiced based exemptions (on this occasion Section 31 (1) it is necessary to establish what harm disclosure of this information may cause to the integrity and effectiveness of law enforcement and public safety. In this case I have considered that there is substantial risk that disclosure may impede the future ability of Sussex Police to ensure that operational information is not disclosed which would give valuable information to potential offenders, helping them in any efforts to circumvent police strategies and tactics, thereby hampering the ability of the police to provide an effective service to the public.

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST;

When applying such qualified exemptions public authorities are also required to complete a public interest test that must take into account public interest in its widest sense in disclosing the information that has been requested.

Favouring Disclosure; There is of course a legitimate public interest in helping ensure accountability of the police service, contributing to the quality of public debate on policing issues. Disclosure might also help allay public concerns about the standards and quality of police performance.

Against Disclosure; There is a risk that the current or future law enforcement role of the force may be compromised by the disclosure of information relating to operational capabilities, contingency plans and procedures which would help potential offenders to circumvent police strategies and tactics, thereby increasing the likelihood of criminal offences being committed and hindering the police in their duty to prevent them.

BALANCING TEST;

Having taken all the above factors into account, I consider that the disclosure of the information covered by Section 31 is outweighed by the public interest in not disclosing it. It is important that the police service should be as open as possible, and indeed a wide variety of information is made publicly available about the way the service is structured, its general resources and responsibilities, through for example the websites and hard copy data available from the Sussex Police Authority, Sussex Police and various government departments with legislative responsibilities. However it is of crucial importance that police are able to make decisions about resourcing particular operations. For this reason on this occasion I am unable to provide you with the information on police numbers employed that particular operation.

This letter therefore serves as a refusal notice under the Act for the information not supplied

Yours sincerely,

T Mahony

halt-edo-mbm

Comments

Display the following 4 comments

  1. "which would give valuable information to potential offenders" — hacim
  2. so much for freedom of information — isn't it obvious?
  3. mmmm — Henry Ford
  4. what a load of crap — masked bandit

Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

-->

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

South Coast [navigation.actions2016]

South Coast [navigation.actions2015]

South Coast [navigation.actions2014]

NATO 2014

South Coast Actions 2013

G8 2013

South Coast Actions 2012

Workfare

South Coast Actions 2011

2011 Census Resistance
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Occupy Everywhere

South Coast Actions 2010

Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands

South Coast Actions 2009

COP15 Climate Summit 2009
G20 London Summit
Guantánamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
University Occupations for Gaza

South Coast Actions 2008

2008 Days Of Action For Autonomous Spaces
Campaign against Carmel-Agrexco
Climate Camp 2008
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Smash EDO
Stop Sequani Animal Testing
Stop the BNP's Red White and Blue festival

South Coast Actions 2007

Climate Camp 2007
DSEi 2007
G8 Germany 2007
Mayday 2007
No Border Camp 2007

South Coast Actions 2006

April 2006 No Borders Days of Action
Art and Activism Caravan 2006
Climate Camp 2006
Faslane
French CPE uprising 2006
G8 Russia 2006
Lebanon War 2006
March 18 Anti War Protest
Mayday 2006
Oaxaca Uprising
Refugee Week 2006
Rossport Solidarity
SOCPA
Transnational Day of Action Against Migration Controls
WSF 2006

South Coast Actions 2005

DSEi 2005
G8 2005
WTO Hong Kong 2005

South Coast Actions 2004

European Social Forum
FBI Server Seizure
May Day 2004
Venezuela

South Coast Actions 2003

Bush 2003
DSEi 2003
Evian G8
May Day 2003
No War F15
Saloniki Prisoner Support
Thessaloniki EU
WSIS 2003

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech