FOI 0622 - 2023/24 - Number of Incidents Occurred at a Stag or Hen Party

Request:

Q1. Could you please disclose, since March 1 2022, a log of every incident recorded by your force relating to the terms 'stag party' or 'hen party'.

For each incident, please disclose:

Q2.  The general location of the incident (i.e. town/city) as recorded by your force

Q3. The date of the incident

Q4. The full log from each incident, as recorded by the force, with any aspects that would prohibit disclosure (such as any information which identify someone involved) redacted.

Response: 

Decision

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you.

To locate any relevant information, a free text search of “hen party” and “stag party” has been conducted within the MO / Incident summary. 

Q1. Between 01 March 2022 to 19 September 2023 there has been 1 incident reported to North Yorkshire Police relating to a ‘hen party’.

Q2. The location recorded in relation to the 1 incident was York.

Q3. I am exempting providing you with the date of the incident pursuant to Section 40(2) Freedom of Information Act (the Act).  This is to ensure anonymity for those involved in each case.  Please see the exemption explanation below.

Q4. I have decided to exempt any additional information, namely the full crime log, pursuant to section 40(2) (Personal Information) and section 31 (Law Enforcement) Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). This is to prevent the identification and protect the anonymity for those involved in each case. In addition, the public make reports to the police, (some of which are highly sensitive) in confidence and regardless of whether all personal information is redacted to protect the identity of those involved, the details of a report made to the police could potentially impede the victim’s future confidence in the police. Please see the exemption below.

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 40(2) – Personal Information

Section 40(2) is an absolute class-based exemption, which does not require a public interest test, but requires the balancing of the legitimate interests of the public against the interests of the individual under the first Data Protection Principle; in that processing of personal data must be lawful and fair (DPA 2018 35(1), EUGDPR Article 5(1)).

Where an individual can be identified by such data, releasing it would clearly breach the first data protection principle of being ‘fair’ to the data subject.

This exemption applies because the right given under the FOI Act to request official information held by public authorities does not apply to the personal data of third parties where disclosure of that information would not be fair to the individual, and where there is no legitimate public interest in disclosure.

In all the circumstances of the case it has been determined that the duty to the individual under the Data Protection Act 2018 & EU General Data Protection Regulations, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption from disclosure of personal information held by the force in such instances, outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In this instance, personal information can only be disclosed to the individual concerned.

Releasing personal details to a person other than the data subject would not only breach the data subject’s Data Protection rights it may also breach the obligations placed on an authority under the European Convention on Human Rights

Section 31 – Law Enforcement

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

As you may be aware, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, disclosing details of crimes/incidents would allow patterns of offending to be recognised which may compromise Law Enforcement and any future tactics or plans to apprehend offenders. This 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.

The details of a crime report are confidential to the reporting person and albeit it can be redacted to protect their identity, disclosure of such information may impact the future relationship between the victims and the police. This could subsequently also affect any future reports they may wish to make, due to the risk of that information would be released into the public domain, via FOIs.

Furthermore, the Police are there to support the public and deliver effective law enforcement, including the investigation of suspects and the protection and safeguarding of victims. Releasing any details of the crime log could compromise the personal safety of any victims if an offender is unaware their crime has been reported and in turn potentially impact any subsequent/future investigation.

Information that adversely affects public safety and confidence will have a negative impact on law enforcement.

Factors favouring disclosure under Section 31

Releasing information would allow the public to see the type of offences reported, making them more aware of such offences which would enable them to take any necessary precautions to protect themselves.

It would show how public funds are being spent in relation to protecting the public.

Factors against disclosure under Section 31

Victims could be placed at risk if the offender is unaware of police involvement as the MO remarks can provide specific details about the offence.

Increases in crimes being committed.  Individuals need to ensure that the reports they provide remain confidential. Individuals may become reluctant to provide information, which could assist an investigation, if they are concerned that the information provided may be requested and released under Freedom of Information requests.

Balance test

The safety of the public is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge the information, if to do so would place the safety of individuals at risk or compromise law enforcement.

Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, ongoing criminal activity and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and accurately recording and investigating crime, there is also a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police reports and those that report crimes.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for exempting your request for planning information is not made out.

Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Act this letter acts as a refusal notice under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to part of 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.