FOI 6944-25 Unintentionally discharging a firearm

Request:

Please answer the following questions for the calendar years of 2022, 2023 and 2024.

1) Please send me a list of all of the incidents of a police officer from your force unintentionally discharging a firearm, telling me the date of the incident, the location, the rank of the officer, the damage caused by the discharging of the firearm (e.g. a glass panel may have been shattered, but please also specify if any injuries were caused by the unintentional discharging of the firearm) and the outcome of the incident (e.g. retraining, reassigned duties, no action taken). Please also tell me if the firearm in question was a police issued firearm or a seized firearm. Tell me the type of firearm too if possible.

Response:

2022 = 0
2023 = 1
2024 = 0

February 2023, during unloading of a Police firearm the PC unintentionally discharges their weapon. The bullet was contained within the designated ballistic protective unload area and did not cause injury or damage. Officer removed from operational duties and required to complete a development plan and assessment prior to operation return.

With regards to the type of firearm:

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 the 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 your request are:

Section 24(1) – National Security
Section 31(1) – Law Enforcement

Sections 24 and 31 are qualified prejudice based exemptions and therefore we are obliged to consider the harm in disclosure and conduct a public interest test.

Evidence of Harm
A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because, under the Act, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, not just to an individual. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, by providing the information of firearms used by authorised firearms officers could allow those who seek to cause harm to members of the public to gain an understanding of the level of resources employed to mitigate the threat of an attack. This could then allow terrorists/extremists with the time and inclination over a period of years to try to map whether purchases are increasing or decreasing year on year.

The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored. It should be recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. The UK faces a sustained threat from violent terrorists and extremists. The UK Government have published the threat level, which is currently set to ‘substantial’ meaning “a terrorist attack is likely.’ In consideration of the ramifications of this threat level, it would not be wise to release details of the firearms used by authorised firearms officers, as to do so could compromise the current or future law enforcement role of the police. Modern-day policing is intelligence-led and information of this nature, needs to be treated with extreme sensitivity as it could have a detrimental effect on the operational effectiveness of the police. There are significant risks associated with the release of such information as this may provide those seeking to commit criminal acts with an advantage over the police, as the information can indeed be viewed as operationally sensitive. Disclosure could have a negative effect on police’s ability to provide the necessary service required should the release of information be used and manipulated by those with criminal or terrorist intent to try and attack individuals or establishments.

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring disclosure Section 24
The information only relates to national security and provision of it would not actually harm it. The public are entitled to know what public funds are spent on and what measures are in place. Providing the details of specialist types of weapons used would lead to a better-informed public.

Factors favouring non-disclosure 24
Providing the information would render policing and security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.

Factors favouring disclosure Section 31
Providing details of specialist types of weapons used would provide an insight into the Police Service. This would enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police. It would greatly assist in the quality and accuracy of public debate, which could otherwise be steeped in rumour and speculation. Where public funds are being spent, there is a public interest in accountability and justifying the use of public money.

Factors favouring non-disclosure Section 31
Providing details of specialist types of weapons used would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics. It has been recorded that Freedom Of Information Act releases are monitored by criminals and terrorists and so to provide specific information concerning intelligence gathering tools would lead to law enforcement being undermined. The Police Service is reliant upon all manner of tools and techniques and the public release of details about these tools would prejudice the ability of the Police Service to perform the functions it exists to provide. Disclosure of specific weapons would compromise the forces’ ability to protect the public. Disclosing the police forces’ capabilities would provide persons intent on disrupting their work, with information that would assist them to do so. The safety of the public is of paramount importance to policing purposes, and any increase in crime would place the public at risk of harm.

Balance Test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge information if to do so would place the safety of the public at risk, undermine National Security or law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in transparency and demonstrating that the police are justified and accountable in the use of funds to conduct the vital work they do and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively allocating resources to armed policing, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police operations in the highly sensitive area of policing. As much as there is a public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, it is our opinion that for these reasons the balancing test favours non-disclosure of the requested information.