FOI 0920-2024/25 Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation

Request
I would like to request under the Freedom of Information act, information held by you on group-based child sexual exploitation.

Q1. In particular, I would like to know what definition, if any, you use to identify group-based child sexual exploitation. 

Q2. Have you a dedicated team investigating group-based child sexual exploitation? If so, how many officers, by rank, are involved in this team?

Q3. If there is no dedicated team, how do you investigate allegations of group-based child sexual exploitation? 

Q4. I would like to know how many investigations into group-based child sexual exploitation you have carried out since 2000. I would like this figure broken down by year, if possible. 

Q5. I would also like to know the number of suspects arrested as part of these investigations and the number subsequently charged. If possible I would like a breakdown of the age, sex and ethnicity of those arrested and charged. 

Q6. I would also like to know the number of people convicted, again with a breakdown of the age, sex and ethnicity of those convicted.

Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within North Yorkshire Police. 

Decision
I have today decided to disclose the following information to you.

Q1. North Yorkshire Police use the IICSA definition as per HMICFRS recommendations which can be found using the below link:
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse | IICSA Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse)

As such, this information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it is available to the applicant by other means. Please see the below exemption explanation.

Q2. North Yorkshire Police does not have a specific group-based child sexual exploitation team, however, we do have a Child Exploitation Team.

Q3. Investigative methods are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 31 of the Act (Law Enforcement). Please see the below exemption explanation.

Q4-6. North Yorkshire police can neither confirm nor deny (NCND) that this  information is held as the duty in S1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions:

S30(3) – Investigations
S31(3) – Law Enforcement

Exemption Explanation

Section 17 of the Act requires 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.

Section 21 – Information Reasonably Accessible by Other Means (Question 1)
Section 21 is an absolute class based exemption and I am not required to consider the harm or public interest when applying this exemption.

Section 31 – Law Enforcement (Question 3)
Section 31 is a prejudice-based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm as well as carrying out a public interest test.

Evidence of Harm
Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act is a release to the public at large. To release the requested information would provide those persons intent on committing crime the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the force. This would compromise law enforcement and would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public. Modern-day policing is intelligence led and this is particularly pertinent with regard to law enforcement. The public expect police forces to use all powers and tactics available to them to prevent and detect crime or disorder and maintain public safety.

Section 31 – Arguments for Disclosure
Disclosure of the information would improve the public’s knowledge and understanding of the effectiveness of the police service.

Section 31 - Arguments against Disclosure
North Yorkshire Police has a duty of care to the community at large and public safety is of paramount importance. Disclosure would undermine the effective delivery of operational law enforcement. It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and terrorists and so to release the information would lead to law enforcement being undermined.

Balancing Test
North Yorkshire Police will not divulge information if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk, undermine or compromise law enforcement. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.

Section 30 Investigations & Section 31 Law Enforcement (Questions 4-6)

Section 30 - Investigations is a prejudice based qualified exemptions and any prejudice (harm) that confirming or denying information is held would cause must be articulated as well as the public interest considerations.

Section 31 – Law Enforcement is a prejudice based qualified exemptions and any prejudice (harm) that confirming or denying information is held would cause must be articulated as well as the public interest considerations.

Evidence of Harm
Section 30 and Section 31 are quite often used in conjunction with each other when applying the neither confirm nor deny stance in order to protect whether or not an investigation may have been conducted.

To confirm or deny whether information is held in relation to any alleged criminal activity would be likely to prejudice law enforcement functions of preventing and detecting crime, apprehending and prosecuting offenders. Issuing confirmation or denial responses in relation to any allegations, except for those that have already been publicly confirmed, would enable the public to build up a picture of who may have been subject of any allegations.  This would be prejudicial to policing functions, as individuals including victims may be less willing to come forward or assist with our enquiries if they were to believe that this information may become public knowledge and them identified.

Public interest considerations favouring confirming or denying whether the information is held (S30)
The Police Service has a duty to conduct criminal investigations and by providing information held would help the public interest and provide transparency of policing operations.

Public interest considerations favouring neither confirming nor denying whether the information is held (S30)
Any information generated by an investigation needs to be treated with sensitivity.  In some cases, it is the confirmation, or otherwise, about who may be the subject of any such investigations, which would disclose facts that would prejudice the evidence gathering within an investigation.

In addition, it would not be in the public interest to disclose information (even inadvertently, through a confirmation or denial) which could identify investigative activities, and subsequently undermine those processes.  To do so would hinder the prevention or detection of crime, and apprehension and prosecution of offenders.

Public interest considerations favouring confirming or denying whether the information is held (S31)
Confirming or denying whether information is held regarding allegations made by or against individuals, would allow the public to see where the public funds are being spent and show the police service to be open and transparent in regards to its activities. 

Public interest considerations favouring neither confirming nor denying whether the information is held (S31)
To confirm or deny that law enforcement holds information on any individual/s in relation to this matter has the potential to damage the Police Service’s ability to prevent and detect crime or apprehend or prosecute offenders in any associated allegations or cases, including tactics and/or reveal sources of information.

Balance Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the Public Interest favours the application of the NCND 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 NCND response.  To confirm or deny the existence of the requested information, would allow interested parties to gain an upper hand and awareness of policing decisions used during investigations, leading to an increase of harm to either the investigation itself or the subject of the investigation.

To confirm or deny whether this information is held would do little to further the public interest arguments, and in fact would have a negative impact upon North Yorkshire Police’s abilities to protect public safety and the promise of confidentiality inherent in our communications with those assisting with our enquiries.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I have found the balance test favours neither confirmation or denial and accordingly refuse your application.

Pursuant to Section 17(1) 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.