FOI 0652-2023/24- Protests
Request:
1. Has any disciplinary action been taken regarding the lack of preparedness for the demonstration by protesters on the roof of the Prime Minister's home recently?
2.Have effective steps been taken to prevent a recurrence?
Response:
Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within North Yorkshire Police.
Decision
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at s1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at s1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of the FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact; b) specifies the exemptions in question and c) state (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption(s) applies.
North Yorkshire Police neither confirms nor denies that it holds information relevant to this request by virtue of the following exemptions:
Question 2 – S24(2) National Security
Question 1 and 2 – S31(3) Law Enforcement
Question 1 and 2 – S40(5) Personal Information
Section 17 of the Act required North Yorkshire 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. Please see the relevant exemption headers below for further information.
Exemptions Explained
Section 40(5) – Personal Information
Section 40 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to evidence the harm or consider the public interest.
Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) is to the world, to confirm or deny that any information is held would disclose that individuals had, or had not, been subjected to disciplinary action at question one, and also whether any security arrangements are in place in relation to a private residence, which itself is personal information and therefore exempt under Section 40(5) of the Act.
North Yorkshire Police has determined that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to neither confirm nor deny outweighs the public interest in confirming or denying whether or not information is held.
Section 24 and 31
Sections 24 and 31 are prejudice based and qualified there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not whether information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.
S31(3), s31(1)(g) by virtue of (2)(b) – Law Enforcement
The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with s1(1)(a) would, or would likely to, prejudice any matters mentioned in subsection (1), namely s31(1)(g) by virtue of (2)(b); the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper. Where confirmation or denial would reveal whether a particular person was under investigation and where this would, or would be likely to, prejudice such an investigation, public authorities should be alert to the need to apply the NCND provision.
Overall Harm
To confirm or deny any information is held in respect of an investigation or disciplinary considerations relevant to this request could potentially undermine any future proceedings to determine whether any person is responsible for improper conduct. It is important that public authorities have the space to fully investigate any allegations of improper conduct without fear of any speculation entering the public domain and undermining the investigation.
Public interest Test
Factors favouring complying with section 1 (1)(a) confirming or denying information is held
Confirmation would maintain public confidence in the force’s ability to deal with such investigations appropriately and responsibly. Disclosure would also promote greater openness and transparency.
Factors against complying with section 1 (1)(a) confirming or denying information is held
To confirm or deny that information is held would risk undermining the investigative process whilst determining whether any member of North Yorkshire Police is responsible for improper conduct; including whether or not an allegation leading to police intervention was proportionate under the circumstances.
Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the Public Interest favours the application of the neither confirm nor deny stance in respect of your request. I consider that the benefit that would result from issuing a confirmation or denial does not outweigh the considerations favouring the neither confirm nor deny response. This is namely because of the impact it would have on individuals and the impact it would have on the ability of North Yorkshire Police to fulfil our law enforcement functions and conduct any potential investigations, either now or in the future.
S24(2) National Security and S31(3) Law enforcement
Overall Harm for Sections 24(2) and 31(3)
FOIA is considered to be a release to the world as once the information is published the public authority, in this case North Yorkshire Police, has no control over what use is made of that information. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant it could be of use to those who seek to cause harm to any person in receipt of protection for whatever reason.
Irrespective of what information is or isn’t held, the effect of confirming or denying information is held to the applicant and, more importantly, to those who may wish to cause harm to individuals in receipt of protection in general, which could include terrorists, criminals and fixated individuals, would be detrimental to those in receipt of protection.
It remains the case that the publication of any information, if held, relating to an individual who is in receipt of police protection could potentially lead to harm to that individual. This is particularly true if that information relates to the security arrangements for that individual or formed any part of a protection package that might or might not be provided. Disclosure of information, if held, damages the need to ensure protection arrangements remain covert, purely in the interests of operational sensitivity.
It is important to note that the UK does face a serious and sustained threat from violent extremists and this threat is greater in scale and ambition than any of the terrorist threats in the past. Government reports suggest that at any one time the police and security agencies are contending with many terrorist plots, terrorist groups or networks and individuals who are judged to pose a threat to the well-being of the UK and or UK interests. While the plots may not necessarily all be directed at attacks on the protected individuals, North Yorkshire Police bear in mind that an attack on members of government or significant individuals afforded protection would be of national significance to our country. To provide information regarding protection arrangements for individuals is likely to place them at serious risk due to their prominence across the globe.
In this current environment of an increased threat of terrorist activity, confirming or denying that information is held that could assist an extremist faction would undermine the safeguarding of national security.
ICO guidance emphasises there is no definition of national security and refers to the Information Tribunal (EA/2006/0045) who summarised:
- “National security” means the security of the United Kingdom and its people;
- The interests of national security are not limited to actions by an individual which are targeted at the UK, its system of government or its people;
- The protection of democracy and the legal and constitutional systems of the state are part of national security as well as military defence;
- Action against a foreign state may be capable indirectly of affecting the security of the UK;
- Reciprocal co-operation between the UK and other states in combating international terrorism is capable of promoting the United Kingdom’s national security.
The ICO guidance also states ‘safeguarding national security also includes protecting potential targets even if there is no evidence that an attack is imminent…the Commissioner also recognises terrorists can be highly motivated and may go to great lengths to gather intelligence. This means there may be grounds for withholding what seems harmless information on the basis that it may assist terrorists when pieced together with other information they may obtain.’
Based on this definition National Security encompasses a wide spectrum and it is our duty to protect the people within the UK. Public safety is of paramount importance to the policing purpose and must be taken into account in deciding whether or not to confirm or deny that the requested information is held.
Public interest Test
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S24
The information requested simply relates to national security and disclosure would not actually harm it. Confirming or denying that the information is held would allow individuals to contribute to more accurate public debate on matters that are of public relevance - in this case information pertinent to protection and the use of public funds.
Factors against confirmation or denial for S24
By confirming or denying any policing arrangements, which may relate to the personal protection of specific individuals, would render security measures less effective. Personal protection is provided to a number of people where it is in the national interest or where intelligence (information) suggests protection is necessary. Specific protection arrangements are applied in order to safeguard national security by ensuring that appropriate safety and security is provided to key figures such as the King and the Prime Minister. The disclosure of any other information, if held, would ultimately increase the risk of harm to those afforded personal protection and to the general public within that vicinity.
Persons/groups would be able to ascertain whether or not North Yorkshire Police has appropriate security plans in place to manage a particular threat to the Prime Minister and the preventative measures that have been adopted.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31
Confirming or denying whether information is held in relation to an individual afforded personal protection would allow the public to see where public funds are being spent and provide reassurance that potential threats to these individuals are being appropriately managed. Better public awareness may assist to reduce crime or lead to more information from the public.
Factors against confirmation or denial for S31
Confirming or denying that the requested information is held relating to the security or protection of specific individuals would lead to law enforcement tactics being compromised, which would ultimately hinder the prevention and detection of crime.
Protection is provided in a number of forms after careful evaluation of the threat and risks posed to those individuals by operational experts in this field of policing. It therefore follows that anything that would negate the benefits of that protection would place individuals at risk. These would be the individuals receiving protection, the police officers providing the protection and any member of the public in the vicinity of the principal.
To confirm or deny the nature of the protection arrangements offered could assist those seeking to identify vulnerabilities in these arrangements. This would again place the individual and officers at risk in the event that they were targeted by criminals/terrorists.
Balancing Test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so would place the safety of an individual in receipt of protection at risk or undermine National Security. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by a potential attack on a VIP, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police operations in the highly sensitive area of personal protection.
The public interest is defined not as what the public might find interesting but there must be some tangible benefit to the public in the disclosure of the interest. In this case, where the request is about protection arrangements for the Prime Minister, the net result of publishing that information would be that a review would need to be conducted to ensure that the threat level was effectively challenged, which would require additional resources to be provided.
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that to confirm or deny that we hold the requested information would not be in the public interest. North Yorkshire Police considers that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed, does not outweigh the harm arising from disclosing information relating to ongoing protection arrangements.
No inference can be drawn from this refusal that information is or is not held.
Pursuant to Section 17(4) of the Act this letter acts as a Refusal Notice in response to your request.
Please note that systems used for recording information are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing the data. It should be noted therefore that this force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other responses you may receive.