FOI 0769-2023/24- ATM Attacks

Request:

Q1. An overview of the current ATM crime situation in the geographical area of your responsability.

Q2. Data on ATM attacks, for the period spanning 2019 to 2022. We require data broken down by:

Q3. Modus operandi employed in these attacks (e.g., explosives, uprooting, others).

Q4. Geographic distribution by location (to enable us to create a geographical incidence map).

Q5. Monthly incident data.

Q6.  Economic losses resulting from these attacks, including stolen funds and property damage.

Q7. Classification of explosives used (solid, gas, etc.).

Q8. The status of these crimes (completed or attempted).

Any additional pertinent information, such as the nationality of suspects, arrest statistics, and behavioral characteristics of offenders, which would greatly contribute to our analysis.

Q9. Crime prevention:

• Insights into the crime prevention measures implemented within your country to mitigate physical attacks on ATMs.
• Identification of institutions responsible for monitoring and enforcing these preventative measures.

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 & Q2. Please see the table below which shows the total amount of ATM crimes recorded by North Yorkshire Police for the period between 2019 to 2022, broken down by year.

I am exempting any further information to your request pursuant to Section 30(1)(a) – Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by a Public Authority. Please see the exemption explanation below.

Year	Total
2019	11
2020	2
2021	1
2022	1
Total	15

Q3. I have decided to exempt any additional information to that provided above namely the full MO remarks pursuant to section 40 (Personal Information) and section 31 (Law Enforcement) Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). Please see the exemption explanation below.

Q4. Please see the table below the total amount of ATM crimes recorded by North Yorkshire Police for the period between 2019 to 2022, broken down by area.

I am exempting any further information to your request pursuant to Section 30(1)(a) – Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by a Public Authority. Please see the exemption explanation below.

Area	Total
York	8
Harrogate	4
Scarborough & Rydale	2
Craven	1
Total	15

Q5. I am exempting any further monthly breakdown of information pursuant to Section 40(2) – Personal Information.  Please see the exemption explanation below.

Q6. North Yorkshire Police don’t hold economic loses in relation to property damage, however the total funds recorded as stolen between the period 2019 to 2022 is £64,245.

Q7. I am exempting providing you with the classifications of explosives used pursuant to Section 31 – Law Enforcemnet.  Please see the exemption explanation below.

Q8. Please see the table below the total amount of ATM crimes recorded by North Yorkshire Police for the period between 2019 to 2022, broken down by outcome and if they were completed or attmepted.

I am exempting any further information to your request pursuant to Section 30(1)(a) – Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by a Public Authority. Please see the exemption explanation below

Outcomes	Attempted	Completed
Evidential difficulties prevent further action; victim supports police action	1	4
Investigation complete - no suspect identified.	4	5
Charged/Summonsed	-	1
Total	5	10

Q9. North Yorkshire Police do not have any specific prevention methods to stop physical attacks on ATM machines.

However there is information that can be found online in regards to best practice for ATM physical security which can be found on the link below.

best-practice-for-physical-atm-security.pdf (link.co.uk)

Further to the above, North Yorkshire Police neither confirms nor denies whether any other information relevant to this request is held by virtue of Section 23(5) – Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security bodies. 

Section 23 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in this case.  Confirming or denying the existence of whether any other information is held would contravene the constrictions laid out within Section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in that this stipulates a generic bar on disclosure of any information applied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.

No inference can be taken from this refusal that information does or does not exist.

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 committed 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 MO remarks of a crime report are sensitive 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 MO remarks could compromise subsequent/future investigations.

Providing details of how specific offences have occurred out may also facilitate future crimes. It is widely known that Freedom of Information is utilised and exploited by criminals to gain intelligence of policing activities. The release of MO remarks can give other criminals knowledge of how to commit similar, and in some cases more sophisticated, offences.

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

Public Interest Test

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

Releasing any information including MO remarks could compromise subsequent and future investigations.

Any offences reported, individuals need to ensure that the reports they provided are confidential. Individuals may therefore become reluctant to provide information, which could assist an investigation, due to concerns that the information provided may be requested and released under Freedom of Information requests.

It is widely known that Freedom of Information is utilised and exploited by criminals to gain intelligence of policing activities. The release of MO remarks can give other criminals knowledge of how to commit similar, and in some cases more sophisticated, offences are carried out, but they may change their MO in order not to be identified.

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 crime.

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.

Section 30 Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities

Section 30 is a qualified, class-based exemption, which requires that I conduct a public interest test to balance the legitimate interests of the public in knowing the information against the interests of non-disclosure.

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring disclosure – Section 30

Disclosure would adhere to the basic principle of being open and transparent and would allow for a more accurate public debate.

Disclosure of the information requested could provide reassurance to the general public that criminal investigations are conducted appropriately.

Factors favouring non-disclosure – Section 30

Law enforcement tactics would be compromised.

The force’s future law enforcement capabilities would be affected.

Disclosure could hinder the prevention and detection and crime, as any offenders could potentially take measure to avoid detection.

Balance Test

After considering the reasons for and against disclosure, it is my opinion that the reasons for non-disclosure outweigh the reasons for disclosure. The Police Service is tasked with enforcing the law and protecting the community we serve and although there is a public interest argument in ensuring we are open and transparent with regard to policing investigations. The ability of North Yorkshire Police to conduct enquiries is crucial to the principles of prevention and detection of crime. Public safety is of paramount importance and any disclosure which has the potential to jeopardise the wellbeing and/or mental health of an individual will not be made.

Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Act this acts as a Refusal Notice in relation to the exempted parts 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.