FOI 6174-25 Female homicide victims

Request:

Please could you provide us with a list of all female victims of homicide killed between 1 January 2024 and 31 December 2024 (inclusive) which your authority has been responsible for investigating and, for each victim:

1. the date of the homicide;
2. the names of the victims and the accused / perpetrator;
3. the age of the victim;
4. the ethnicity/race of the victim;
5. the relationship between the accused and the victim;
6. the sex of the accused / perpetrator;
7. the ethnicity/race of the perpetrator;
8. if identified, the way in which the victim was killed;

Also, if possible, we would appreciate the following information.

9. whether there were any previous reports from the victim (or any third party) regarding the accused / perpetrator; and

10. whether there were any previous reports and / or convictions of any other offences related to violence against women perpetrated by the accused / perpetrator.

Response:

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Northamptonshire 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

The exemptions applicable to the information requested are:

Section 30(1) – Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities

Section 40(2) – Personal Information

S30 - Factors in favour of disclosure
Incidents involving murder offences attract public interest and national disclosure of the information requested would give the public the satisfaction of knowing that these types of crimes are investigated properly, and that the use of public funds is being spent wisely.

S30 - Factors in favour of non-disclosure
Information relating to ongoing investigations will rarely be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act and only where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure. We would not release any information as to do so could jeopardise any future proceedings. Any information which could prejudice prosecutions, or aid offenders, is not in the public interest. In addition, the right to a fair trial could be undermined. Releasing information could affect the forces future law enforcement capabilities which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime.

Balance Test
The public interest test is centred on whether the information you have requested should be disclosed to the world, not just to you the applicant.

The Police service is tasked with protecting the community and solving crime and they would not disclose information if it would jeopardise those important roles. By disclosing the requested information in this case would mean that investigations would be less effective and the small benefit in increased public awareness would not be adequate compensation for such an impact on society. It is therefore my opinion that the balance lies in favour of non-disclosure of the data requested.

Section 40 pertains to third party personal data. This would not be released under the Freedom Of Information Act unless there is a strong public interest. This is because any release would breach the Principles contained within Article 5(1) of the GDPR and Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

One of the main differences between the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act is that any information released under Freedom Of Information is released into the public domain, not just to the individual requesting the information. As such, any release that identifies an individual through releasing their personal data, even third party personal data, is exempted unless there is a strong public interest in its release. The public interest is not what interests the public but what benefits the community as a whole.

Personal data is defined under the Data Protection Act as data that is biographical in nature, has the applicant as its focus and/or affects the data subject’s privacy in his or her personal, professional or business life.

Principle a of Article 5(1) states that information must be processed fairly, lawfully and in a transparent manner. In this case the individuals would have a reasonable expectation that information would not be processed if it resulted in their identification, or equally led an individual to be wrongfully identified as a consequence.

Freedom Of Information Act disclosures are to the world at large and will remain in the public domain indefinitely. Therefore, provision of this information would exceed the original Policing requirement for the processing of the information and would not be lawful or fair to the individuals in question.

It is for these reasons outlined above; that I feel the principle a would be breached by this disclosure and the Section 40 exemption remains in place. I am not obliged to consider any further principle in my arguments. This is an absolute, class-based exemption and, as such, there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.