FOI How many Officers have been found to provide an incorrect statement during an investigation (0837-2022/23)
Request
I have questions regarding the act of a police officer knowingly giving false testimony used in a criminal trial.
1, Under the standards of professional behaviour relating to duties and responsibilities if officers lie or provide dishonest accounts about their actions they should be disciplined. How many officers have been found to have given incorrect or factually inaccurate signed statements during or after an investigation.
2, How many officers have attempted to cover factually incorrect evidence up by providing a dishonest account under oath whilst being questioned by another officer.
3, If a written signed police statement used as evidence is sent to another force as evidence/information and found later to be inaccurate, what steps are taken to correct it. Would it be removed from all systems? If not why?
4, Are factually incorrect statements and evidence routinely audited and deleted from all systems.
5, If a police officer uses factually incorrect information to gain access to a company’s database for information, can that information found within that database using incorrect information still be used for policing? If not what steps are used to delete the information?
Response
Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within North Yorkshire Police. I can confirm that the information you have requested is held by North Yorkshire Police.
Decision
I have today decided to disclose the located information to you.
Q1. 0
Q2. North Yorkshire Police hold no information in relation to this question. Either the account given in interview is proven to be false, or it is true. It cannot be an attempt to be either way.
Q3. This question is not valid under the FOI act in so much as Information is defined in section 84 of the Act as 'information recorded in any form'. The Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded information. It does not require public authorities to answer questions generally; only if they already hold the answers in recorded form. The Act does not extend to requests for information about policies or their implementation, or the merits or demerits of any proposal or action - unless, of course, the answer to any such request is already held in recorded form. However, an error or anomaly, such as providing the wrong date or time, could be addressed and explained within a furtherance statement. However, in the event that the matter was more serious, such as stating a deliberate falsehood, then the force would not hold any policy that would allow for the amendment of a statement given falsely, nor any policy to delete/destroy such.
Q4. North Yorkshire Police hold no information in relation to this question.
Q5. This question is not valid under the FOI act in so much as Information is defined in section 84 of the Act as 'information recorded in any form'. The Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded information. It does not require public authorities to answer questions generally; only if they already hold the answers in recorded form. The Act does not extend to requests for information about policies or their implementation, or the merits or demerits of any proposal or action - unless, of course, the answer to any such request is already held in recorded form. However In the event that an Officer made a false disclosure to a company to access information, thereby obtaining the information without a lawful purpose then the information could still be used for a policing purpose, namely the detection of the crime relevant to an investigation in relation to the Officer who unlawfully obtained it.
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.