FOI 0756-2023/24- VAWG Misconduct data
Request:
As a freedom of information request, please provide data on the number of police officers and staff you have been criminally investigated for a sexual or VAWG offence. Specifically, for each year from 2018 onwards, please provide:
Q1. The number of police officers criminally investigated for a sexual offence, split by crime type and outcome.
Q2. The number of police officers criminally investigated for a VAWG offence, split by the crime type and outcome.
Q3. The number of police staff criminally investigated for a sexual offence, split by the crime type and outcome.
Q4. The number of police staff criminally investigated for a VAWG offence, split by the crime type and outcome.
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.
|
Year |
Number/ Officers |
Crime type |
Outcome |
|
2018 |
No Information Held |
||
|
2019 |
No Information Held |
||
|
2020 |
2 |
VAWG |
Former North Yorkshire Police officer denies sex assault charge - BBC News |
|
2021 |
2 |
VAWG |
North Yorkshire Police officer sacked for abusing and controlling women - The Stray Ferret
North Yorkshire Police officer sacked after hotel sex assault (yorkshirepost.co.uk) |
|
2022 |
No Information Held |
||
|
2023 |
1 |
VAWG |
|
For any live investigations, I am exempting a response pursuant to section 40(2) – Personal Information and s31(1)(g) by virtue of 2(b) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper.
Exemption Explanation
Section 40 – Personal Information
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) 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)).
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(1)(g) (2b) – 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, releasing any information held regarding details of cases where investigations are/have taken place would prejudice a fair and just process in ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct matter which is improper.
Factors favouring disclosure under Section 31
Releasing information would allow the public to have a better understanding of the types of complaints that are being made by the public or staff members.
Information would ensure transparency around such conduct matters.
Factors against disclosure under Section 31
It can be argued that there are risks associated with providing information in relation to conducts matters, as full details and accounts may not have fully been assessed in respect of truth /conduct. This in turn would affect the forces ability to carry out law enforcement as information could be used against Officers/ staff where there is no justification to do so, as cases may not be upheld.
Standards of Professional Behaviour are expected by the police and the public on how police officers should behave. As such there are already processes in place for disclosing such matters e.g. ‘ gross miscounts’ when certain cases have been held. Disclosing any other information may affect the public’s confidence in the police service and also affect those who may have been involved in the cases. As information is provided in confidence, to reveal such information would prejudice that sharing of information between the public/victim and the police.
Balance test
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing misconducts, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations in the highly sensitive matters. As such any disclosure of such information will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for exempting your request is not made out.
Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Act this letter acts as a Refusal Notice in response 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.