FOI 10351-25 Use of force 65+

Request to Northamptonshire Police:

Please can you tell me how many times the following methods of force were deployed by this force against people aged 65+, disaggregating the data by exact age and by the years 2022, 2023 and 2024.

• CED/Taser
• Firearms
• Spit and bite guard
• Irritant spray - PAVA and CS
• AEP
• Baton
• Dog bite

Response:

Exact ages will not be provided.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires that, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) is to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

• States that fact
• Specifies the exemption(s) in question and
• States (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption(s)

The information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of the following exemption:

Section 40(2) – Personal Information

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. Risk increases where numbers are low and timescales recent.

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.

Use of force data is regularly published on the Northamptonshire Police website, please see link below:

Use of force | Northamptonshire Police

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.