FOI 2443-25 Police Misconduct

Request:

How many police officers in your force are currently under investigation over sexual and/or domestic abuse claims; and how many of those officers are

a) suspended;
b) on restricted duties;
c) working as normal; and
d) have left the force.

Response:

Northamptonshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to this request as the duty under Section1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 30(3) - Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement
Section 38(2) - Health and Safety
Section 40(5) - Personal Information

Section 30 is a class-based qualified exemption and consideration of the public interest must be given as to whether neither confirming nor denying information exists is the appropriate response.

Sections 31 and 38 are qualified, prejudice-based exemptions, and there is a requirement to evidence the harm and consider the public interest as to whether neither confirming nor denying information exists is the appropriate response.

Section 40 is an absolute class-based exemption which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by release and there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.

Evidence of Harm
Sexual and domestic abuse offending is a very emotive subject and the Police Service strive to deal with all aspects of it which includes dealing with police officers who commit this type of offending.

Should an officer who is currently being investigated for sexual or domestic abuse offending either by way of misconduct investigation or potentially criminal proceedings, it would likely ensue that in some cases formal charges may be made. However, we also need to consider that not all allegations are proven and may not lead to a formal charge. To confirm or deny that information is held would highlight that officers are or are not currently subject to an investigation into these types of offences and such an awareness would also highlight to suspects that their victims have either reported their offending to Northamptonshire Police or not which either way could lead to further offending against their victims causing physical and/or emotional trauma.

Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held with regard to this request, ongoing investigations would also be compromised if the offender were made aware an investigation into their behaviour is ongoing which would enable steps to be taken by them to destroy evidence, or put more pressure on their victims through coercive abuse to ensure their allegations are dropped.

Public interest Considerations:

Section 30 – Factors favouring complying with section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying information is held

Confirming or denying whether information exists would lead to a better informed general public by identifying that Northamptonshire Police robustly investigate all aspects of criminal offending, including allegations made against their own officers. This fact alone may encourage individuals to provide intelligence in order to assist with investigations and promote public trust in providing transparency and demonstrating openness and accountability into where the police are currently focusing their investigations.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a)
Confirmation or denial that information is held would suggest Northamptonshire Police take their responsibility to appropriately handle and manage intelligence supplied to them flippantly.

Under Freedom Of Information there is a requirement to comply with s1(1)(a) and confirm what information is held. In some cases, it is that confirmation, or not, which could disclose facts which would undermine the investigative process and in such cases Northamptonshire Police takes advantage of its ability under Freedom Of Information legislation to, where appropriate, neither confirm nor deny that information is or is not held.

Irrespective of what information is or isn’t held, any information which could be used to undermine prosecutions, or aid offenders to continue with their abuse, is not in the public interest.

Section 31 – Factors favouring complying with section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying information is held

Disclosure would provide transparency in the way police officers are dealt with when suspected of carrying out criminal offending such as sexual or domestic abuse offences and may improve public debate into the credibility of how Northamptonshire Police deals with these allegations within the force. It would also serve to demonstrate that Northamptonshire Police is open and accountable.

Factors favouring not complying with section 1 (1)(a) confirming or denying information is held

To confirm or deny whether information is held or isn’t held would risk undermining the investigative process whilst determining whether any police officer is responsible for improper conduct; including whether or not an allegation of this nature leading to police intervention was proportionate under the circumstances.

Northamptonshire Police has a duty of care to the community at large and public safety is of paramount importance. If a Freedom Of Information disclosure revealed information to the world (by citing an exemption or stating no information held) that would undermine an investigation and place the safety of an individual at risk, this could be used to an offenders’ advantage which would compromise any potential victims and public safety generally. It may also encourage offenders to carry out further crimes.

Northamptonshire Police relies on information being supplied by the public. Irrespective of what information is or isn’t held, by applying substantive exemptions would indicate that information is held and there are currently ongoing investigations. Such action would act as a deterrent to the public to provide intelligence to the force which would further undermine public safety, with repercussions that could hinder the prevention or detection of crime.

Section 38(2) Health and Safety

Factors favouring complying with s1(1)(a) confirming information is held

Confirmation of whether information is or isn’t held would provide reassurance to the general public that Northamptonshire Police take all allegations seriously. This awareness could be used to improve any public consultations/debates in relation to this subject and also allow the public to take steps to protect themselves.

Factors against complying with s1(1)(a) confirming or denying that information is held

Confirming or denying that information exists could lead to the loss of public confidence in Northamptonshire Police ability to protect the wellbeing of the community.

Northamptonshire Police has a duty of care towards the general public per se and to reveal information via a Freedom Of Information request which would place the safety of individuals in danger, is not in the public interest.

Balancing Test

The points above highlight the merits of confirming, or denying, whether any information pertinent to this request exists. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As part of that policing purpose, various operations may or may not be ongoing. The Police Service will never divulge whether or not information pertinent to this request does or does not exist, if to do so would place the safety of an individual(s) at risk, compromise an ongoing investigation or undermine the policing purpose in the effective delivery of operational law enforcement.

Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and investigations particularly in relation to Northamptonshire Police’s own police officers, providing reassurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively investigating current allegations of offending against police officers, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the health and safety of individuals. As much as there is a public interest in knowing that policing activity into allegations against its own police officers is appropriate and balanced it will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.

Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test for confirming, nor denying that information is held is appropriate.

S40(5) – Personal Information
Consideration on applying this exemption is subject to whether the disclosure of any information would lead to identifying individuals and place information pertaining to them into the public domain. This constitutes personal data which would, if released, be in breach of the rights provided by the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulations; namely the first data protection principle, which states that personal data will be processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. It is my view that the request runs counter to the three requirements prescribed by law and that there is no lawful basis to provide this information. Disclosures which appear harmless, pieced together with other disclosures can be used in a ‘mosaic effect’ to third parties who may have access to additional information that would enable them to link the requested information to an individual.

This is an absolute exemption and no public interest test is required.

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

Northamptonshire Police regularly publish misconduct outcomes:

Published items | Northamptonshire Police (northants.police.uk)