|
the Government Guidance death with subsections (a)
and (b) - concerning the prevention/detection of crime
and the appreahnision/proscuition of offenders together.
It says that examples of circumstances that examples
of circumstances in which the prejudicial effects
referred to in this part of this exemption are most
likely to be relevant could include the following
disclosures:
| • |
intelligence
about anticipated criminal activities (disclosure
here has a high potential to prejudice the prevention
or detection of the crime in question, and the
apprehension of the alleged offenders); |
| • |
information
relating to planned police operations, including
specific planned operations, and policies and
procedures relating to operational activity; |
| • |
information
relating to the identity and role of police informers
(to which a number of other exemptions are also
likely to be relevant, including those under sections
30, 38, 40 and 41); |
| • |
information relating to police strategies and
tactics in seeking to prevent crime (the disclosure
of such information has a high potential to undermine
legitimate police objectives carried out in the
public interest); |
| • |
information
whose disclosure would facilitate the commission
of any offence; and |
| • |
information
whose disclosure would prejudice the fair trial
of any person against whom proceedings have been
or may be instituted (to which again a number
of other exemptions may also be relevant, particularly,
with reference to section 44, in relation to disclosures
which would breach Article 6 of the ECHR). |
In relation to the "public Interest test' it
states:
"If it is clear that prejudice would, or would
be likely to, arise, the balance of the public interest
in disclosing and withholding the information must
be considered. In common with other prejudice-based
exemptions, the nature, degree and likelihood of the
prejudice to be caused will need to be taken into
account in considering the balance of public interest
in disclosure (see part 3.3 for general guidance on
the application of the public interest test).
Maintaining confidence in law enforcement and the
criminal justice system is crucial to the public interest.
This is a public interest consideration which, depending
on circumstances, may weigh both for and against disclosure.
Much is done through police/community consultation
and the media to keep citizens informed about the
ways in which the police carry out their responsibilities.
But on occasions, there will be some tension between
this emphasis on openness and the need to maintain
the confidentiality of specific operations or policies.
Similar considerations will apply to other law enforcement
bodies.
It is particularly important in this context to be
aware that "prejudice" may arise on an incremental
basis, as well as in respect of a single disclosure.
For example, disclosure of information on a single
specific police operation designed to apprehend alleged
offenders would be likely to be prejudicial, as would
disclosures of more generalised information relating
to police strategies and tactics where this was considered
to undermine legitimatepolice objectives and hamper
future operational activity in view of limiting the
value of the strategies and tactics in question once
disclosed or providing valuable intelligence to perpetrators
of crime.
In weighing the public interest it will be necessary
to consider the public interest that applies to the
particular case. Examples of considerations which
might be specifically relevant to this section include:
| • |
The effects of crime on individuals.
For example, it would not be in the public interest
to disclose details of a surveillance operation
and thus potentially compromise that operation,
where the target was a person suspected of a series
of violent assaults; |
| • |
The effects of crime on society.
For example, it may not serve the public interest
to disclose in advance the arrangements for an
operation to combat graffiti and other criminal
damage in a specific area; and |
| • |
The effects of crime on the economy.
For example, it may be against the public interest
to disclose specific police strategies for action
against those failing to pay fines or other penalties.Other
more complex examples might include disclosing
the location of speed cameras - this may reduce
the number of offences detected, but still have
a positive effect in terms of cutting offending
behaviour, at least in specific locations." |
|
