Freedom of Information Disclosure Log

Here you will find the FOI requests that have been published.

Reference: 9999-18
Date: 11/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 13th August.  I note you seek the following:

If possible, please could you provide information on the following for the last 10 years (2008 – 2018):
1)       How many police traffic officers did your force have at the start of each of calendar year?
a)       Below is the headcount we cannot provide data previous to 2012.  
2012 – 80
2013 – 78
2014 – 75
2015 – 73
2016 – 65
2017 – 61
2018 – 63

Q2. Where possible, please indicate the number of police traffic officers on patrol at different times of day (i.e. those working during the morning, afternoon and overnight)

For question 2 we would rely on the following:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 31(3) – Law enforcement

Sections 31 is a prejudice based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.

Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 31
Better awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public, and the public would be able to take steps to protect themselves. Some information is already in the public domain.

Factors against confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 31
By confirming or denying whether we hold more information would compromise law enforcement tactics and undermine the partnership approach which would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. This would impact on police resources, more crime would then be committed and individuals placed at risk.

Balance test

Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.
As much as there is public interest in knowing the number of officers employed within specialised roles and that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of policing and investigation this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.
There is no requirement to satisfy any public concern over the number of officers who are trained in and/or carry out specialist roles. Forces are already held to account by statute, for example the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and by independent bodies such as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Our accountability is therefore enhanced by neither confirming nor denying whether any information is held.

 

Reference: 9998-18
Date: 11/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 13th August.  I note you seek the following:

Can you please tell me how many gross misconduct hearings the IOPC and its predecessor body the IPCC directed the force to hold in the period July 31 2013 – July 31 2018?
Can you please provide a summary of the outcome of the cases at those hearings – i.e. in how many cases was gross misconduct found / how many misconduct found / how many no case to answer?

Having made enquiries within the Force there have been 1 direct IPCC hearing in 2015, 3 Officers were taken to a hearing and the case was not proven against any of the officers.

Reference: 9997-18
Date: 11/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 13th August.  I note you seek the following:
- The number of individual firearms seized by this police force since 2003, per financial year.
- The number of seizures (i.e. when some seizures will have resulted in the recovery of more than one firearm) by this police force since 2003, per financial year.
- Of those firearms seized, what percentage were legally held, per year?
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that firstly we do not hold the data going back to 2003 and to ascertain the information in your request each record would need to be looked at and interrogated and it is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  At this point we would suggest how to refine your request but because of the numbers even a year would take over the time stipulated.  However as a gesture of goodwill outside of the act we have information from previous requests in regards to gun seizures these do include ammunition as to weed those out would also take over the time stipulated.
2013 - 469
2014 - 530
2015 - 399
2016 - 437
2017 - 600
2018 - 374

 

Reference: 9995-18
Date: 10/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 10th August.  I note you seek the following: 

1)      How many people have reported offences relating to the sharing of private sexual photographs or films without the subject’s consent possession in the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and the year to date?
a)
2015 – 23
2016 – 45
2017 – 44
2018 to July - 36

2)      How many arrests have been made for offences relating to the sharing of private sexual photographs or films without the subject’s consent possession in the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and the year to date?
a)
2015 – 4
2016 – 8
2017 – 4
2018 to July – 6

3)      If possible, please break the above figures down into gender and ages, e.g. 12 years old, 13 years old. 

Arrests
Female Age
16 – 25   2
26 – 40   2
Male Age
16 – 25   7
26 – 40   8
41 – 65   3
Grand Total 22

Reported crimes
Female ages
16 & under 22
17 – 20  33
21 – 30   57
31 – 40  17  
41 – 50  5
Male ages
16 & under 0
17 – 20  1
21 – 30   7
31 – 40  3  
41 – 50  0
50 & above 2

Having made enquiries above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  We have amalgamated the information with them being small numbers as if put with any other information you may hold could lead to identification. 

Reference: 9993-18
Date: 10/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 10th August.  I note you seek the following:
Would you be able to tell me please how many (if any) of your police dogs and horses have been injured on duty in the last 24 months?
Where possible can you tell me how many were deliberately harmed by a member of the public.
Having made enquiries within the Force there have been no Police Dogs injured in the last 12 months we are assuming by injured you mean harmed as opposed to sliced pads etc.  With regards to Horses we do not have a Mounted Section therefore the answer is no information held.
Reference: 9989-18
Date: 07/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 9th August.  I note you seek the following:
The number of European Arrest Warrants a) requested and b) executed by the police force in each of the last five years.
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(1) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 23 is absolute exemption, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.  In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.
Reference: 9988-18
Date: 07/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 9th August.  I note you seek the following:
• The trend over the years 2015,2016 & 2017 for number of penalty tickets and warnings issued to drivers caught speeding in Hartlepool district.
• The range of excess speed identified in these cases where penalty tickets are issued in zones of 30mph or 20mph (residential streets). Example 3 to 10mph in excess (X no), 11 to 20mph in excess (Y no) etc in Hartlepool district
• The trend over the years 2015, 2016 & 2017 for the number of penalty tickets issued to drivers caught using a hand held phone in Hartlepool district
• The trend over the years 2015, 2016 & 2017 for the number of penalty tickets issued to drivers for not wearing of seat belts (including those of their passengers for which the driver is responsible) in the Hartlepool district

Speeding offences
2015 – 45
2016 – 33
2017 – 52
Speeding offences in a 30mph zone
2015 – 4
2016 – 5
2017 – 10
Use mobile phone whilst driving
2015 – 41
2016 – 41
2017 – 34
Seatbelt offences
2015 – 46
2016 – 31
2017 – 64

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve this does not include camera offences.

 

 

Reference: 9986-18
Date: 05/09/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 8th August 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

 

I would like to request the following information please:

1. The top 10 reported causes for car collisions for your authority area and the number of collisions for each, for the past year (or the most recent data you have available for the duration of a year).

2. The top 10 reported road hazards for your authority area and the number of times each was reported, for the past year (or the most recent data you have available for the duration of a year).

a) We have assumed that question 1 pertains to Contributory factors and question 2  to Carriageway Hazards and following enquiries with the Traffic Management & Casualty Reduction Team we have been able to retrieve the below information to answer your request.

 

Top 10 contributory factors present in collisions in Cleveland, 2017

 

Contributory Factor

Total Collisions

Failed to look properly

157

Failed to judge other person's path or speed

98

Careless, reckless or in a hurry

52

Poor turn or manoeuvre

49

Loss of Control

39

Following too close

33

Dazzling sun

30

Travelling too fast for conditions

28

Exceeding speed limit

28

Slippery road (due to weather)

27

 

Carriageway Hazards:

 

Carriageway Hazards

Total Collisions

None

672

Any animal in carriageway (except ridden horse)

3

Other object in carriageway

2

Involvement with previous accident

2

Grand Total

679

 

Please note that any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

 

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

 

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

Reference: 9983-18
Date: 06/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 8th August 2018.  I note you seek the following:
I would like to know the number of crimes (e.g. - burglary, shop thefts, violence, Anti Social Behaviour) made by your force on 31st October 2017, Halloween. Broken down by each area you cover please.
See attached document.
The statistics from the last five years (2012-2017) of the number of arrests that have been made on October 31
2012- 64
2013- 66
2014- 51
2015- 65
2016- 45
2017- 30

Having made enquiries within the Force all the information we have been able to retrieve are above and in the attached document.

 


 

Reference: 9982-18
Date: 06/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated and received by this office on 8th August 2018.  I note you seek access to the information detailed below.

1) The number of children under 18 acting as covert human intelligence sources were rejected in each year since 2010. Can I have that broken down by year?
2) The total payments to children under 18 acting as covert human intelligence sources were rejected in each year since 2010. Can I have that broken down by year?
3) The crimes that children under 18 acting as covert human intelligence sources were rejected in each year since 2010. Can I have that broken down by year?
4) In 2015 the National Police Chiefs Council endorsed and published the National Strategy for the Policing of Children and Young people. This strategy says “It is crucial that in all encounters with the police those below the age of 18 should be treated as children first. So how many complaints have you had about using children under 18 acting as covert human intelligence sources?
A) by whom
B) what were the types of complaints
C) what was the result of those complaints

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at s1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at s1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of the FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact; b) specifies the exemptions in question and c) state (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption(s) applies.

Cleveland Police neither confirms nor denies that it holds information relevant to this request by virtue of the following exemptions.
Section 23(5) Information supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies;
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 30(3) Investigations by virtue of Section 30(2)
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Section 38(2) Health and Safety
Section 40(5) Personal Information

Sections 23 and 40 are class based absolute exemptions and there is no requirement to evidence the harm or consider the public interest.  With regard to Section 40 please bear in mind that the changes brought about by GDPR apply where you are considering whether the use of NCND is appropriate inasmuch as determining that confirmation or denial would be lawful and fair.  

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.

With Sections 31, 24 and 38 being prejudice based and qualified there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not whether information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test. 

Evidence of Harm in complying with Section 1(1)(a) – to confirm or not whether information is or isn’t held
The public expect police forces and other law enforcement agencies to use all powers and tactics available to prevent and detect crime or disorder and maintain public safety.  There are a number of covert tactics available and the use of informants (CHIS) is one of them.  Used correctly, in line with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act legislation, it is a proportionate, lawful and ethical tactic which provides an effective means of obtaining evidence and intelligence.

There is considerable harm attributed to the confirmation or denial of any information in relation to police receiving information from confidential sources, regardless of their age.  Such information would not exist had covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) not been required to participate in the effective investigation of criminal matters.  The information would only be held if it were obtained and recorded by the force for the purpose of its functions in relation to criminal investigations. 

In this case, and irrespective of whether any information relating to this request is or isn’t held, confirmation or denial that individuals under the age of 18 are used as CHIS is likely to reduce the flow of information to the Police Service and intelligence agencies and would have a substantial prejudicial impact on the ability of such authorities to collect reliable and accurate intelligence.   Furthermore, law enforcement bodies would become dependent on more costly and time consuming methods of collecting intelligence. 

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (regardless of their motivation) provide information at particular personal risk to themselves and their families.  As previous cases have shown, where a CHIS is identified it can result in substantial physical harm, or mental trauma resulting from the threat of physical harm.  This problem is particularly acute in cases relating to serious crime and terrorism where the threat against individuals is substantial.  To confirm or deny whether or not individuals under the age of 18 years are used as CHIS by Cleveland Police would place those individual(s), if any, at an increased risk from danger as detailed above.  

At present the use of CHIS is regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (soon to fall under the Investigatory Powers Act) which requires authorities to take into account the provisions of the Human Rights Act when using CHIS (and other covert techniques).  Police forces are reminded of their obligation under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act which requires them to protect human life.  This is further supported by a High Court hearing Van Colle v Chief Constable Hertfordshire Police.  In this case the force concerned failed to provide adequate protection to an individual whose life was at risk because of the criminal acts of a third party.  The witness was murdered by a person whom he was about to give evidence against in a criminal trial.

It may be viewed by those not involved in the management of informants that a statistical number in itself is unlikely to cause any such adverse effects.  However, the subject has to be viewed more holistically.

Those determined to identify informants have the ability to use small pieces of information in order to build a more complete picture and it is the cumulative effect of information disclosures that the Police Service feel will lead to this prejudice being realised. 

Irrespective of what information is or isn’t held, numbers may be extremely low and not all forces will have recruited children as CHIS.  To state ‘no information held’ or cite a substantive exemption would confirm which forces have individuals under the age of 18 recruited as covert human intelligence sources (CHIS).  This in itself would be harm inasmuch as it would potentially reveal CHIS activity and locations.

Public Interest Considerations

Section 24(2) National Security
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirmation or denying that any other information is held
The public are entitled to know how funds are spent and resources distributed within an area of policing, particularly with regard to how the police investigate terrorist atrocities.  To confirm whether information exists would enable the general public to hold Cleveland Police to account in relation to how all CHIS are recruited by (force name) to ensure it is done so in line with RIPA legislation and local force policies and procedures.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a)
Taking into account the current security climate within the United Kingdom, there should be no confirmation or denial that information is or is not held where confirmation or denial may aid a terrorist and their activities.  To what extent confirmation or denial may aid a terrorist is unknown, but it is clear that it will have an impact on a force’s ability to monitor terrorist activity.

The public entrust the Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety and protection.  The only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with what is placed into the public domain and in some circumstances such as these, confirmation or denial that information is held.

The cumulative effect of terrorists gathering information from various sources would build a picture of vulnerabilities within certain scenarios, such as the use of individuals under the age of 18 being recruited as CHIS.  The more information placed in the public domain over time, even by confirming or denying, will provide a more detailed account of the tactical infrastructure of not only a force area but also the country as a whole.

Any incident which results from such a disclosure would by default affect National Security.

Section 30(3) Investigations
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held.
Confirming or denying that any information exists would lead to a better informed public, improving their knowledge and understanding of how the Police Service utilise the use of Covert Human Intelligence Sources as part of their investigative policing. 

The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve.  Confirming or denying that information exists could promote public trust in providing transparency and demonstrating openness and accountability into how the investigation took place.  It could also provide reassurance to the public that the Police Service tasks all reports of a crime seriously and conducts investigations appropriately.  To confirm information is held could allow the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the Police Service.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that information is held
However, by its very nature information held relating to informants is sensitive in nature.  Under FOI there is a requirement to comply with Section 1(1)(a) and confirm what information is held.  In some cases it is that confirmation, or not, which could disclose facts harmful to informants.  In some cases their mere existence can place individuals in grave danger.  The only methodology which will provide the required degree of protection to those individuals is if the force takes advantage of its ability under FOI legislation to, when appropriate, not confirm or deny that the information requested is, or is not held.  The Police Service will never confirm or deny information is held if in doing so could identify investigative activity and therefore undermine their investigations.  To do so would hinder the prevention or detection of crime.

Section 31 Law Enforcement
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming information is held
There is information within the public domain, such as Lord Trefgarne’s Scrutiny Committee report into the use of juvenile CHIS by the Police Service, see below link, and that in itself favours confirmation information is held:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldsecleg/168/168.pdf

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) neither confirming nor denying that information is held
Cleveland Police has a duty of care to the community at large and public safety is of paramount importance.  If an FOI disclosure reveals information to the world by not adopting an NCND position, would not only compromise and undermine the security of the national infrastructure, the effective delivery of operational law enforcement would also be undermined as offenders, including terrorist organisations, could use this knowledge to their advantage which would compromise public safety and more worryingly encourage offenders to carry our further crimes.

Cleveland Police relies on information being supplied by the public.  Irrespective of what information is or is not held, by applying substantive exemptions would indicate that information is held and therefore a juvenile CHIS located within Cleveland Police jurisdiction.  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 Health and Safety
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming information is held.
Confirming whether information is or is not held would provide reassurance to the general public that Cleveland Police uses tactical options with regard to the use of Covert Human Intelligence Sources as a means of acquiring intelligence.  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 Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that information is held
Confirming or denying that information exists could lead to the loss of public confidence in Cleveland Police ability to protect the wellbeing of individuals recruited as CHIS as well as members of the community at large.

Cleveland Police has a duty of care towards any individual who has been recruited as a CHIS.  To reveal information via an FOI request which would place the safety of individuals in grave 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 tactical options, including the use of juvenile CHIS, may or may not be utilised.  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 on-going 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, providing reassurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat from criminals, 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 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 neither confirming, nor denying that information is held is appropriate.

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

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9981-18
Date: 06/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 7th August.  I note you seek the following information.
1. Please could you provide information as to whether Cleveland Police have an internal policy detailing the process to be undertaken if an adverse judicial comment is made against an officer in criminal or civil court. The information I am interested in is the subsequent validation process through the Professional Standards Department and CPS, as per Chapter 18 of the CPS Disclosure Manual.
a)  No Policy
(I do not need the policy in relation to disclosure to CPS of an adverse finding on an MG6b)
2. If such a policy exists could I please be furnished with a copy via email
a) n/a
3. Could you please provide information on how many officers have been subject to adverse judicial comments and had this process applied to them in the years 2012-2017 inclusive.
Could you please tell me, of these, how many adverse judicial comments were validated into adverse judicial findings by CPS.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that this would require retrieving and reading manually every conduct case to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request as we do not record adverse judicial comments and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.
 

Reference: 9980-18
Date: 05/09/2018

I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th August 2018 and received in this office on 8th August 2018.  I note you seek access to the following information.

 

Please can you tell me how many people have you detained under section 136 of the mental health act in each year over the past 10 years. 

 

Please give me the figures in calendar years, if possible.


In each case, how old was the person detained, for how many hours was the person detained, and where were they detained i.e. police station, at home? 

Below is all of the information we have been able to retrieve, this information is only for full years from 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2017 and is due to changes in custody systems and other management systems.

 

AGE OF DETAINEE            HOURS SPENT IN CUSTODY

2015     

19           4hr 51mi

42           13hr 26mi

35           12hr 14mi

25           Detention not authorised

46           12hr 24mi

60           1hr 11mi

18           12hr 25mi

25           28hrs, 14 of which were spent in hospital, clock stops

60           8hr 58mi

16           7hr 44

52           26 mins

22           14hrs 18 mi

31           2hrs 14 mi

60           9hrs 33 mi

33           Detention no authorised

35           11hrs 21mi

35           11hrs 21mi

39           18hrs 21mi

2016     

20           3hrs 30mi

35           23hrs 37mi

50           13hrs 55mi

24           11hrs 44mi

19           Detention not authorised

39           19hrs 41mi

23           25mins

26           10hrs 1mi

22           Detention not authorised

33           17hrs 12mi

24           15hrs 30mi. Further arrested for criminal matters, so only 8hrs on 136

60           36mins

23           12hrs 46mi

2017     

51           39mins

26           11hrs 7mi

31           11hrs 31mi

30           20mins

20           18hrs 44mi

20           9hrs 43mi

48           15hrs 13mi

44           1hr 54mi

31           1hr 59mi

 

 

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

 

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

 

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

Reference: 9979-18
Date: 01/10/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th August 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your original request and the information we have been able to retrieve.  Please accept our apologies for the late response, your patience is appreciated.
 
1. Does Cleveland Police utilise a third party as opposed to an in-house developed Case Management Solution (for example only: Socrates, LIMA, Holmes 2)
a) Yes
2. If so, what is the name of the solution and who provided the solution? If multiple solutions, please provide the requested information per solution
a) Locard – Atkins
Lima – Intaforensics
3. What year was the solution purchased?
a) Locard was purchased in 2001 and Lima was purchased in 2016
4. What was the initial cost of purchase?
a) Locard – We are unable to identify the initial cost of purchase on the system due to the date of purchase.
Lima – £25,800 (Net)
5. Was it purchased on an annual, multi-year or perpetual basis?
a) Locard – multiyear and Lima - perpetual
6. How many users are licenced to use the Case Management System
a) Locard – is a web based solution with force wide access, different permissions for different uses.  The Main management sits with SSU operations managers.  Lima – we have 10 licences, at present with 18 staff who can access (but only 10 at a time)
7. How much per annum has Cleveland Police spent on support and maintenance of the Case Management Solution since the purchase year?
a) Locard – We are only able to provide information from the financial year 2012/13 at this is as far back as we can access information on our systems.
2012/13 – £22,000 (Net)
2013/14 – £23,100 (Net) 
2014/15 – £23,100 (Net)
2015/16 – £23,100 (Net)
2016/17 – £25,412 (Net)
2017/18 – £26,428 (Net)
2018/19 – £31,507.00 (Net)
Lima – New system implemented 17/18, first renewal for support and maintenance is not due until March 2019.
8. How much per annum has Cleveland Police spent on training in relation to the use of the Case Management Solution since the purchase year?
a) Lima – The initial purchase included a training package, now staff are trained in house and Locard – none
9. Who provides training in relation to the Case Management Solution?
a) Lima – technical manager and Locard – SSU Operations managers 
10. How much per annum has Cleveland Police spent on customer development and consultancy in relation to the use of the Case Management Solution since the purchase year
a) None for both
11. How many staff in total work in your Forensic Department
a) 31
12. How many staff in total work in your Digital Forensic Department
a) 12

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

Reference: 9977-18
Date: 05/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th August 2018 and received in this office on 8th August 2018.  Below is the content of your request and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you

Please tell me from July 2012 to July 2018 how many times your Police Force Area recorded the
following crimes:
61/24 - Making a counterfeit coin or note;
61/25 - Pass etc. counterfeit coin or note as genuine;
61/26 - Possess counterfeit coin or note;
61/27 - possess materials or dies to make counterfeit coin or note;
61/28 - Reproduce British currency note or make imitation coins
Please give me the number per month (amended to bi-annual), and broken down by the Home Office crime codes listed
above - for example (random numbers chosen to illustrate): Correction: can you please give
me the numbers broken down bi-annually. I.e. January 1st-June June 31st for 2012 and July 1t - December 31st for 2012. And the same for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2015, 2017 and 2018.
July 2012: 61/24 - 6; 61/25 - 3; 61/26 - 7; 61/27 - 1; 61/28 - 3. August 2012 - 2; 61/25 - 4; 61/26 - 8; 61/27 - 3; 61/28 - 0.

061/24
1 July – December 2012
061/25
2013
January – June – 5 
July – December – 2 
2014
January – June – 11 
July – December – 3 
2015
January – June – 2 
July – December – 15 
2016
January – June – 25 
July – December – 16 
2017
January – June – 9 
July – December – 23 
2018
January – June – 34 

061/26
2012
None
2013
January – June – 2 
July – December – 1 
2014
January – June – 2 
July – December – 1 
2015
January – June – 1 
July – December – 3 
2016
January – June – 2 
July – December – 0 
2017
January – June – 1 
July – December – 4 
2018
January – June – 3 
061/27
None for all time periods
061/28
None for all time periods

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

Reference: 9961-18
Date: 25/09/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 2nd August. Please accept our apologies for the late response.  I note you seek the following: 

Please provide, from the whole force area, figures and details for the number of offences of animal cruelty - i.e. animals being abused or killed - with a break-down of each year, month and where. 

Please provide for each offence:

details of the type of animal involved

summary of the MO test

location

the number of arrests

Police outcomes

In the first instance I would like the data from the 1st Jan 2008 – 31st July 2018

But if 10 years is not possible in the time frame, please may I have the past 5 years – so 1st Jan 2013 – 31st July 2018. 

Having made enquiries within our Performance Quality and Review team the conducted a search from 2008 onwards they have no recorded crimes of Animal Cruelty.  However a search of the arrest record has produced the below:  

 

Arrest reason

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Breach a disqualification imposed after conviction - Animal Welfare Act 2006 (recordable)

0

1

3

3

0

1

Cause unnecessary suffering to a protected animal - Animal Welfare Act 2006 (recordable)

1

3

4

7

13

8

CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING TO ANIMAL

0

1

0

0

0

0

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS - ACT OF / CAUSE / PERMIT

1

2

1

2

0

0

PERSON IN CHARGE ABANDON ANIMAL LIKELY CAUSE SUFFERING

0

1

1

0

0

0

Grand Total

2

8

9

12

13

9

 

Reference: 9960-18
Date: 05/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 2nd August.  Please accept our apologies for the late response this office currently has a backlog of requests due to some staffing issues.  I note you seek access to the following information.

1. Do you have a procurement policy which supports the use of UK Government IT procurement
frameworks, such as G-Cloud and Digital Outcomes and Specialists?
a) Yes
2. Has your organisation adopted a strategy or IT policy guidance for using:
(Please indicate yes or no for each)
• Hyperscale public cloud (e.g. AWS / Azure/ Google Cloud Platform)
a) Yes
• Other cloud (e.g. UK Cloud)
a) No
• Software as a Service (e.g. Office 365)
a) Yes
2.1. Who is responsible for each?
a) Head of ICT
3. How many on-premise data centres do you own?
a) 2
(In this context, a ‘data centre’ is a secure processing facility which hosts one or more IT systems)
4. How many third-party data centres do you use?
a) 2
(i.e. for colocation)
5. Do you use cloud for storing data / applications?
a) Yes
6. Expressed in percentage terms, approximately what proportion of your data and applications
are held in:
• An on-premise data centre
a) 90%
• A third-party data centre
a) 10%
• Hyperscale public cloud (e.g. AWS / Azure/ Google Cloud Platform)
a) 0%
• Other public cloud (e.g. UK Cloud)
a) 0%
• Private cloud
a) This is the same as 3rd Party Data Centre
7. Is your IT primarily managed in-house or is it outsourced? Outsourced
8. Do you share your IT infrastructure and services with any other organisation? No
(i.e. do you have shared services arrangements)
9. Do you have a central IT department?
a) Yes
10. Who in your organisation is responsible for driving your cloud strategy?
a) Head of ICT
We have also included a link to the NPTC ‘National ICT Strategic Principles’ Document which provides addition reading.
https://ict.police.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/National-ICT-Strategic-Principles.docx
11. If your organisation does have a cloud strategy, what are the main drivers?
• Cost savings
• Scalability
• Agility
• Security
• Modernisation
• Other (please specify):
a) All
12. In the next 12 months are you looking to procure any of the following?
(Please indicate yes or no for each)
• On-premise data centre
a) No
• Colocation facilities
a) No
• Physical IT infrastructure
a) Yes
• Hyperscale public cloud services (e.g. AWS / Azure/ Google Cloud Platform)
a) No
• Other public cloud services (e.g. UK Cloud)
a) No
• Private cloud services
a) No
• Outsourced IT managed services
a) No
Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

Reference: 9952-18
Date: 25/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 30th July.  Please accept our apologies for the late response.  I note you seek the following:

in 2016 and 2017 respectively, how many reports have there been in which the words: 'zombie', 'werewolf', 'ghost', and 'alien' have appeared?

2017 – Zombie -21 Werewolf – 0 Ghost – 31 Alien - 29
2016 -  Zombie -13 Werewolf – 1 Ghost – 43 Alien - 31

How many dogs considered dangerous were taken from their owners in 2016 and 2017 respectively? If this information is not held, please describe how accountability is maintained regarding its monitoring process.

2017 – 25
2016 - 24
 
How many people are currently ‘wanted’ or ‘on the run’ in your jurisdiction?

2017 – 13
2016 – 6

Having made enquiries within various departments above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9950-18
Date: 18/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 30th July.  Please accept our apologies for the late response.  I note you seek the following information:

1. How many police officers in your force have been vetted and have up-to-date security clearance? What is this as a percentage of the total? 
a)  As off 16th July the force had 1269 officers with 135 requiring a re-vet to ensure their vetting was up to date.
2. How many PCSOs in your force have been vetted and have up-to-date security clearance? What is this as a percentage of the total? 
a)  Force had 143 PCSO with 81requiring a re-vet to ensure their vetting was up to date.
3. What is your vetting policy and procedure?
a)  NPCC National Vetting Code of Practice
4. Do you have a trusted means of confidential reporting of colleagues' misconduct and concerning behaviour? Could you share your policy on this? If not, what are your plans to draw up a policy on this?
a)  Force internal Confidential Email system and Crime stoppers.
5. Do you have the ability to monitor and audit IT systems to identify abuse of position for a sexual purpose? If not, what are your plans to do so?
a)  Yes
6. Do you have a Chief Officer Lead for Police Sexual Misconduct?  What is their name?
a) The Department of Standards and Ethics is part of DCC Nickless portfolio.
When were they appointed?
a) Appointed to the Force 1st July 2014.
How many meetings have they attended on this issue of sexual misconduct?
a) As a Chief Officer DCC Nickless will attend numerous meetings and to identify those that relate to this subject matter would require the retrieval of all minutes of meetings to identify those pertinent to this request.
7. Of those convicted of a crime associated with abuse of position for a sexual purpose, how many have had their pensions forfeited after the change in guidance? What is this as a percentage of the total?
a)  None
8. Are you working with academic institutions to develop an understanding of abuse of position for a sexual purpose and how to prevent it? Are you working with agencies who work with vulnerable children and adults? If so, who are you working with and what is your policy on this? If not, what are your plans to do so?
a) Having made enquiries within our Learning and Development Department they are not and not aware of any other Department either.
9. Are you running training or communications programmes to raise awareness with your staff? If so, what are these? If not, do you have plans to do so?
Could you also share your latest plans to comply with the strategy?
a)  Yes there is a mandatory e-learning package that all staff has to complete.
Having made enquiries above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  Once again please accept our apologies for the late response.


 

Reference: 9943-18
Date: 29/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 30th July 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

1. In the 2017 calendar year how many offences did your force log of “making a threat to kill” where the threat was posted on Facebook?
a) 4
2. Starting from the month of October 2017 please provide me with copies of the first five MOs that relating to question 1 complete with the wording that was used on Facebook. [Note: To avoid falling into an exemption I am content for names, ages, geography or any other personal detail to be redacted].
a) Within the time scale of this question there was only one such offence recorded and the wording from the MO is detailed below.
‘SUSPECT CONTACTS HIS EX PARTNER ON FACEBOOK MESSENGER AND DURING THE
CONVERSATION THREATENS TO SET HER DAUGHTER ON FIRE AND MAKE HER WATCH HER BURN
AND THAT HE WOULD PUT A PETROL BOMB THROUGH HER LETTERBOX’.

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9942-18
Date: 29/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 30th July 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

Please could you provide under the Freedom of Information Act the following information in an Excel spreadsheet (.xls or .csv).
For each of the following calendar years, the number of “citizen’s arrests” made in your police force area (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 so far).
Please also break the number of arrests down by the type of crime, see below for categories.
If the breakdown by crime type is not possible, please at least provide the overall number of citizen’s arrests made in each year.
a) We have made enquiries with our Custody Management Team and they have advised that there is no way of retrieving information from force systems regarding ‘Citizens Arrests’ other than manually retrieving and reading through every arrest record to ascertain if that information had been recorded.

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9940-18
Date: 29/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 30th July 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

Question 1:
What training or information has been provided to call handlers on the “Public nudity advice and decision aid” issued by the College of Policing in April 2018 and available at http://library.college.police.uk/docs/nudity.pdf?
a) None
Question 2:
What training or information has been provided to operational officers on the “Public nudity advice and decision aid” issued by the College of Policing in April 2018 and available at http://library.college.police.uk/docs/nudity.pdf?
a) None
  
Question 3
What additional training or information dissemination is planned or being considered on the “Public nudity advice and decision aid” issued by the College of Policing in April 2018 and available at http://library.college.police.uk/docs/nudity.pdf?
a) None

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9939-18
Date: 29/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 28th July 2018 and received by this office on 30th July 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

I am seeking the following information on acid attacks, also known as applying a corrosive substance, for each calendar month from January 2018 to July 2018:

1. The number of acid attacks recorded.
a) 6 – January – 1, April – 1, May – 1, June – 1 and July – 2 

2. The number of acid attacks which resulted in an arrest.
a) Two (1 June & 1 July)

3. The number of acid attacks which result in a charge.
a) None, for three the victim either Victim declines/unable to support action to identify offender or Victim declines/withdraws support - named suspect identified.

4. The number of attacks where the alleged perpetrator was male.
a) Two (1 June & 1 July)

5. The number of attacks where the alleged perpetrator was female.
a) None

6. The age of the youngest alleged victim of an acid attack.
a) 19

7. The age of the oldest alleged victim of an acid attack.
a) 50

We have only been able to provide the gender of the perpetrator if the crime was a positive outcome OR the perpetrator had been arrested for the offence but the crime was still live.
Please note the substance used was not stated in the majority of the crimes but it was NOT believed to be acid.

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9932-18
Date: 28/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated and received by this office on 27th July 2018. 

Please could you provide the following information under the Freedom of Information Act:
The query is about arrests and cautions of people aged under 18 for possession of cannabis with intent to supply.
Please could you state how many people aged under 18 have been arrested and cautioned for possession of cannabis with intent to supply since 2012-2013.
Please could the information be broken down in the following ways:
By the age of the young person eg 14, 17
By the year eg 2012-2013, 2014-2015
Also, please could you provide one set of figures for arrests and another for cautions
a) We have attached a document that contains all of the information requested that we have been able to retrieve.  Please Note we have been advised that there were NO Cautions

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9930-18
Date: 24/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 26th July 2018 and received by this office on 27th July 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

I would like to have the number of children that have been issued gun licences in the last three financial years.
I would like a breakdown for each financial year and by age of the child when the licence was granted.
2015/16 – 8 issued ages 1 x 11, 1 x 14, 1 x 15, 2 x 16 & 3 x 17.
2016/17 – 6 issued ages 3 x 16 & 3 x 17.
2017/18 – 9 issued ages 1 x 12, 1 x 14, 2 x 15, 4 x 16 & 1 x 17.


Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9929-18
Date: 24/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 26th July 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below is the question raised in your request and the information we have retrieve for you.:

Under the Freedom of Information Act, please provide me with data regarding domestic abuse for each of the financial years between 2013/14 and 2017/18.
For each year, please tell me the number of domestic abuse cases (a) reported, (b) classed as incidents, (c) classed as crimes, and (d) instances of a crime where a suspect was charged and referred to the CPS.
For each year and category (a-d), please also give me a breakdown by the gender of the accused/perpetrator? If possible, please also provide a similar breakdown for age.

We have made enquiries within the force and the analysts have provided us with the below information regarding domestic abuse incidents, domestic abuse crimes and domestic abuse crimes with an outcome of ‘charge/summons’ for the time periods 2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18.
Domestic abuse incidents
2014/15 - 15268
2015/16 - 15173
2016/17 - 15518
2017/18 - 16157
Domestic abuse recorded crimes
2014/15 - 4147
2015/16 - 5438
2016/17 - 6641
2017/18 - 7137
Domestic abuse crimes, positive outcome charge/summons
2014/15 - 1235
2015/16 - 1358
2016/17 - 1325
2017/18 - 1177

However they have advised that they cannot tell if the suspect was charged and referred to the CPS or not and they are unable to provide the breakdowns as requested (gender & age of victim/offender) as the figures provided were taken from our Domestic Abuse database and in order to obtain the In order to obtain the gender & age of victim/offender they would have to re-run the domestic abuse search, which would in turn bring back totally different figures to those originally reported at the time. The data provided is a snapshot in time of the data held at the time the request was run.
We do not keep the raw data which provides us with the information.

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9958-18
Date: 29/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated and received by this office on 1st August 2018.
Below is the content of your request and following enquiries within the force the information we have retrieved.

In line with my right under FOI - I would like to ask how much Cleveland Police spends on frontline neighbourhood policing and what this is as a percentage of the current budget?
And secondly how much Cleveland police spent on frontline neighbourhood policing in 2012 and what this is as a percentage of the current budget?

Response
1. Background
The Cost of neighbourhood policing is not budgeted for as a separate activity as all budgets are allocated dependent on expenditure type (for example police pay, premises costs etc.) as published in February as part of the PCC’s decision notices. The total budget for 2018/19 is £119.8m
However HMICFRS use Value for Money profiles as an aid to inspect each Force in England and Wales. This information covers police spending across all types of activities- both national and local- and includes a range of indicators of police performance, including crime rates.
Forces have much in common. They often provide a response to similar types of crimes and incidents. This means they carry out many similar functions.
Similarities make it easier to compare Forces and the profiles are specifically designed for this purpose- to highlight where there are important differences in costs or performance
However no two Forces are exactly alike, so the task is to make the comparisons as fair as possible, given the constraints of using national data. They also try to distinguish between costs which are within a Forces control and those which are not. For example, national pay rates for police officers or the demographics of the force area are both outside the force’s control.
2. In line with my right under FOI - I would like to ask how much Cleveland Police spends on frontline neighbourhood policing and what this is as a percentage of the current budget?
One of the areas that HMICFRS ask for analysis on is Local Policing, which within the HMICFRS analysis includes Neighbourhood Policing, Incident Response Management, Local Investigation and Prisoner processing and Specialist Community Liaison.
The analysis shows that in 2017/18, which was the last year available for the HMICFRS Value for Money profiles, Cleveland budgeted to spend £13.5m on Neighbourhood Policing, this is before the additional investment in this area of £1.5m by the PCC – of which £1.25m was budgeted to spend in 2017/18 – to allow for the time taken to recruit into these new posts. So in total £14.75m was budgeted to be spent in 2017/18.
This equated to 11.9% of the 2017/18 budget, based on the HMICFRS’ analysis of total budget available to the Force/PCC when National Policing and Central Costs are removed. This compares to the 11.6% spent by those Forces that are described as most similar to Cleveland.

3. And secondly how much Cleveland police spent on frontline neighbourhood policing in 2012 and what this is as a percentage of the current budget?
The HMIC analysis from 2012/13 shows that Cleveland budgeted to spend £16.1m on Neighbourhood Policing which included a £2.948m specific grant, from the Government, to fund PCSO’s within Cleveland. This grant was cut at the end of 2012/13 and is no longer available to the PCC/Force and therefore has resulted in less funding being available to be spent in this area overall.
This equated to 12.9% of the 2012/13 budget based on the HMICFRS’ analysis of total budget available to the Force/PCC when National Policing and Central Costs are removed.
If the specific grant is removed from the analysis (which provides a better comparator to the 2017/18 position) then the budget for Neighbourhood Policing would have equated to 10.9% of the overall 2012/13 budget.

Please note that any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9958-18
Date: 24/08/2018
Reference: 9920-18
Date: 23/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 25th July.  I note you seek the following:
All crimes recorded where the identified victim is aged over 65 for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 calender years, with an annual breakdown.
The number of such crimes (broken down by year) that resulted in a charge  over the same years, with a similar breakdown.
Could you please breakdown the offences into specific crimes, ensuring that you use the Home Office's crime classifications (name and code) rather than any other classifications.
Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.
Reference: 9913-18
Date: 22/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 24th July 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you:

1. From the 14th June – 15th July 2018 during the period of the FIFA World Cup, how many football-related incidents were recorded by your constabulary?
By incidents, this could relate to needing police presence due to violent or disorderly behaviour as a result of an individual, or individuals preparing to watch, watching or have watched a World Cup match.
a) A search has been carried out in relation to your request and within the timescale specified there have been a total of 21 incidents recorded however of these only 3 were actually football related.
2. From the 14th June – 15th July 2018 during the period of the FIFA World Cup, how many football-related offences were recorded by your constabulary?
By football-related offences, this means an offence by virtue of Schedule One of the Football Spectators Act 1989.
a) 3


Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9911-18
Date: 22/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 24th July 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you:

In each of the last three calendar years (2015, 2016, 2017), in how many cases did a woman who had reported to police that she was being stalked or harassed by a partner, ex-partner, or stalker go on to commit suicide after making her report?
If applicable, please break down any cases by year

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

We have made enquiries with our analysts regarding this request and have been advised that it is not something that we are able to answer. In 2015 alone there were 791 recorded crimes of harassment and to provide an answer to your request would require that we search each file to ascertain how many of the reports related to females as the victim being subjected to harassment by a partner, ex-partner, or stalker. A further search would then need to be made to ascertain if the relationship between victim and perpetrator is recorded.  It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.
At this point we would normally offer advice on refining the request but as the analyst has indicated that a single year would exceed the time limit I am unable to offer any suggestions. 

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9908-18
Date: 22/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 23rd July 2018 and received by this office on 24th July 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you:

I am writing to request anonymous information about domestic violence crimes where the victim is aged 60 and over that have been reported and recorded by your constabulary.

1. Please could you state the annual total number of domestic violence crimes recorded where the victim is aged 60 and over during each of the 2015, 2016, 2017 calendar years and this year to date.
For each crime you have recorded in the annual totals, please could you provide a further breakdown including;
Age of victim at the time of the offence
Age of perpetrator at the time of the offence
Gender of perpetrator
Gender of victim 
Relationship of PERPETRATOR to the victim
a) We have made enquiries with our analysts and have attached an excel document that contains all of the information requested.

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9907-18
Date: 21/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 22nd July and received in this office on 23rd July 2018.  I note you seek the following:
Please can you tell me how many arrests have been made by the police force for drug-related offences in each year over the last 10 years.
For each offence please also state the approximate location where the arrest took place i.e. village, town or area of a city.
Having made enquiries we have enclosed a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve for all arrests containing the word ‘Drug/s’.
We have provided the arrests by the for police districts
H = Hartlepool
S = Stockton
M = Middlesbrough
R = Redcar & Cleveland

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.


 

Reference: 9906-18
Date: 21/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 23rd July.  I note you seek the following:
For the period 1st October 2017 to 31st December 2017 can you please tell me how many drone/UAV related calls have been received by Cleveland Police, with a breakdown of the nature of the incident, any action taken, and the month the call was received.
Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document that provides all of the information we have been able to retrieve.
Reference: 9905-18
Date: 21/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 23rd July.  I note you seek the following:

1. In the last three available years (by calendar or financial) how much money has been paid to telecoms companies for data to help solve a crime?

2. Over the same time period how many individual requests have been made in each year for data?
a)  To access this information please visit:
2015 calendar year:
https://www.ipco.org.uk/docs/iocco/56850%20HC%20255%20ICCO%20Web%20only.pdf
2016 calendar year:
https://www.ipco.org.uk/docs/CCS207_CCS1217634744-1_IOCCO_ARA_16-17.pdf
In relation to 2017 this is intended for future publication therefore is subject to a public interest test:

When considering the public interest the main focus must be on the date the information is due for publication and whether this is ‘reasonable’.  There is a duty for the Interception of Communications Commission to review the powers under Part 1 of RIPA and to report annually to the Prime Minister (the findings are contained within the annual reports) therefore as the information is published annually, we feel the PIT was fall in favour of withholding the information at this time and await publication.
3. Over the same time period how many crimes does this relate to?
4. Over the same time period how much money has been paid to telecoms companies for data to help solve a murder?

5. Would you be able to, year on year, break down the amount paid to each individual telecoms company?

6. Would you like to provide a statement relating to the amount the force has to pay to telecoms companies to retrieve data? Does this have an impact on budgets? Are the arrangements fair?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having made enquiries within the force regarding your request we have been advised that there are approximately 6500 files, pertinent to question 3 alone. There is no general search facility to identify this information and therefore each would need to be retrieved and researched manually to ascertain the actual number of crimes that are or were investigated.  It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.
However if you submit a revised request omitting questions 3, 4 and 5 we will endeavour to provide you with the information requested. 
Additionally we would also rely upon the following;
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;
This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.
Section 23 is an absolute exemption, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.  In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.
With Section 31(3) being a prejudiced based qualified exemption, there is a requirement for us to evidence harm confirming or denying information is held and also consider the public interest.

Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information with regard to an exempt body as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 23(5) Information supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Section 23 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in this case.

Confirming or denying the existence of whether any other information is held would contravene the constrictions laid out within Section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in that this stipulates a generic bar on disclosure of any information applied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.

Evidence of Harm for Section 31
Disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large.  Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying that any other information is held into the use of specialist equipment, as in this case the extraction of data by telecoms companies for payment, would highlight to offenders, who may still be at large, whether or not data from their phones has been passed to Cleveland Police.  This would be to the detriment of the murder investigation as it could enable the offenders to take evasive action to destroy evidence and avoid apprehension. 

Factors favouring Neither Confirming Nor Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying whether any other information in relation to this request would provide an insight into the Police Service.  This would enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of Cleveland Police and about how the police use tactical capability to assist with their investigations. 

This 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 against Neither Confirming Nor Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding payments being made to telecoms companies would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and would also hinder future investigations.  In addition, confirming or denying methods used to gather intelligence and evidence for an investigation would prejudice that investigation and any possible future proceedings.

It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and so to confirm or deny any other information is held concerning specialist tactics relating to the extracting of communications data would lead to law enforcement being undermined. 

Balance Test
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and the use of public funds, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and operations. 

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.  The extraction of data communications for payment to assist with investigations is well known by the public, however it is our opinion that for the issues stated above the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any other information is held relating to the extraction of telecommunications data to help solve a crime is not made out.

However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any other information that would meet your request exists or does not exist. 

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.
The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.
If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

 

Reference: 9904-18
Date: 21/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 23rd July.  I note you seek the following information:
I am seeking up-to-date information about the proportion of police detentions/interviews of suspects in which the requirement for an appropriate adult (as defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice, principally Code C paragraph 1.4) was recognised and recorded by officers. 

I would be grateful if you could provide the following data for your force area, for the period of the year to March 2018, and limited to adult (persons aged 18 or over) suspects only:

1. The total number of authorised detentions
a)  13,587

2. The total number of authorised detentions in which the need for an appropriate adult was recorded
a)  see below

3. The total number of voluntary interviews
a)  3,561

4. The total number of voluntary interviews in which the need for an AA was recorded
a)  No information held

If this data is not held (or cannot be compiled within the cost limits) for the requested period, please provide any relevant data for the most recent possible period.

If this data is not held (or cannot be compiled within the cost limits) for any period, I would be grateful for any information by way of explanation (e.g. no records of voluntary interviews are held; the requirement for an AA is not systematically stored in custody information systems).

It would be very helpful if the data could be provided in Excel readable format (i.e. XLS, XLSX or CSV).

For question 2 we would rely on:
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that there all records  would require checking to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  However as a gesture of goodwill outside of the act we have provided all the information retrieved before it was realised that part of the request exceeded the time limit stipulated.

Reference: 9721-18
Date: 20/08/2018 I write in connection with you request for information received in this office on 15th May.  I note you seek the following:
1 How many Civilian Investigators are currently used by your force? Please note, if here is no job title of ‘civilian investigator’ therefore we have searched your HR system for employees with the following job titles; Civilian Investigating Officer, Civilian Investigation Officer, Civilian Investigator, Police Staff Investigating Officer and Police Staff Investigator.
a) 41

2. Which units, squads and/or operations contain Civilian Investigators - and how many Civilian Investigators work in each? Ideally, please give a total of all investigators to identify the proportion of which are made up of Civilian Investigators
a) Department          No. of  PSI
C&J HIU Team A   1
C&J Major Crime Incidents  1
C&J OCT     7
C&J Organised Crime   1
C&J POLIT Team    2
C&J Prisoner Handling Team   10
C&J SOMU     3
CNY MIT Team     11
Crime & Operations   1
NPP Communities & Partnerships 2
Standards & Ethics   2
Grand Total    41

3. How many Civilian Investigators have been used by your force over the past 5 years? Please break these down by month and year.
a)  Please see attached document

4. Which external companies or agencies are currently contracted to provide or recruit Civilian Investigators to your force (i.e. G4S, Servoca, etc.)? How much are these contracts worth, how long do they run and when did they start?
a)  None
5. How much money has been spent in total on Civilian Investigators for the last five years? Please break this down by month and year.
a) N/A

6. What crimes did these civilian investigators look at? Please break it down by crime and by year
a) for the above we would rely on:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

This would require retrieving and reading manually each crime to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  However as a gesture of goodwill outside of the act we have provided you all the information that was retrieved and available before it was realised that for one of the questions would take over the time stipulated.
 

 

Reference: 9902-18
Date: 17/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 19th July.  I note you seek the following:

1.           Does the force use the facial recognition technology available through the Police National Database (PND)?
a) Yes
2.           Since the PND facial recognition technology was introduced (ie. for each of the last three years), how many facial recognition searches has the force carried out against the PND?
a)  No information is held
3.           If possible, please list the sources of the images that were searched against the PND (eg. body-worn video, dash-cam, etc)
a)  No information is held
4.           Does the force keep a record of how many of those facial recognition matches were correct? If so, please supply details.
a)  No information is held
5.           For each of the last three years, how many requests have the Force’s officers and staff made (under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act 2000, or otherwise) to search Facebook, SnapChat, Instagram and Twitter for images and/or video footage? Please give figures for each company if possible. How many of these requests have been granted?

For question 5 we would rely on:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 24(2) National Security;
Section 30(3) Investigations;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;

Overall harm for NCND
In order to counter criminal and terrorist behaviour it is vital that the police and other agencies have the ability to work together, where necessary covertly, in order to obtain intelligence within current legislative frameworks to ensure the successful arrest and prosecution of those who commit or plan to commit acts of terrorism. In order to achieve this goal, it is vitally important that information sharing takes place with other police forces and security bodies within the UK and Internationally in order to support counter-terrorism measures in the fight to deprive international terrorist networks of their ability to commit crime.  It should be recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. The UK faces a serious and sustained threat from violent extremists and this threat is greater in scale and ambition than any of the terrorist threats in the past.  Since 2006, the UK Government have published the threat level, based upon current intelligence and that threat has remained at the second highest level, ‘severe’, except for two short periods during August 2006 and June and July 2007, when it was raised to the highest threat ‘critical’.  The Police Service is committed to demonstrating proportionality and accountability regarding surveillance techniques to the appropriate authorities. However, if the Police Service were to either confirm or deny that any other information exists; other covert surveillance tactics will either be compromised or significantly weakened. If the Police Service denies a tactic is used in one request but then exempts for another, requesters can determine the ‘exempt’ answer is in fact a technique used in policing. The impact could undermine national security, any on-going investigations and any future investigations, as it would enable targeted individuals/groups to become surveillance aware. This would help subjects avoid detection, and inhibit the prevention and detection of crime.  The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built and the police have a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those responsible for committing crime or those that plan to commit crime. To do this the police require evidence and that evidence can come from a number of sources, some of which is obtained through covert means.
Having obtained sufficient evidence offenders are charged with offences and placed before the courts. By confirming or denying that any other information pertinent to this request exists could directly influence the stages of that process, and jeopardise current investigations or prejudice law enforcement.  Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S24
The public is entitled to know how public funds are spent and by confirming or denying that information relevant to the request exists could lead to a better-informed public that can take steps to protect themselves
Factors against confirmation or denial for S24
By confirming or denying that information relevant to the request exists would render security measures less effective. This could lead to the compromise of on-going or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31
By confirming or denying that information relevant to the request exists, would enable the public to see where public funds are being spent. Better public awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public.  The quality of public debate may also be enhanced.
Factors against confirmation or denial for S31
By confirming or denying that information relevant to the request exists, law enforcement tactics could be compromised which could hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime could be committed and individuals placed at risk.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S30
By confirming or denying that information relevant to the request exists would enable the public to obtain satisfaction that all investigations are conducted properly and that their public money is well spent.
Factors against confirmation or denial for S30
By confirming or denying that information relevant to the request exists, would hinder the prevention or detection of crime, and undermine the partnership approach to law enforcement, which would subsequently affect the force’s future law enforcement capabilities.
Balance test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so could undermine national security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of national security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.  Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any other information relevant to your request exists is not made out.  There is also no requirement to satisfy any public concern over the legality of police operations and the tactics we may or may not use. The force is already held to account by independent bodies such as The Office of the Surveillance Commissioner and The Interception of Communications Commissioners Office. These inspections assess each constabulary’s compliance with the legislation and a full report is submitted to the Prime Minister and Scottish Ministers containing statistical information. Our accountability is therefore not enhanced by confirming or denying that any other information is held.
None of the above can be viewed as an inference that any other information does or does not exist.

Reference: 9901-18
Date: 16/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th July 2018 and received by this office on that date and your refined request of 26th July 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

1. How many offences has your force recorded where the key term “Grindr” has been use? (ie where the term Grindr has been mentioned in the MO field of a crime report)? In 2015? 2016? 2017? 2018?
a) 7
2. How many offences has your force recorded where the key term “Tinder” has been use? (ie where the term Tinder has been mentioned in the MO field of a crime report)? In 2015? 2016? 2017? 2018?
a) 6
3. How many offences has your force recorded where the key term “Bumble” has been use? (ie where the term Bumble has been mentioned in the MO field of a crime report)? In 2015? 2016? 2017? 2018?
a) None
4. How many offences has your force recorded where the key term “dating app” has been use? (ie where the term dating app has been mentioned in the MO field of a crime report)? In 2015? 2016? 2017? 2018?
With regards to question 4 Cleveland Police would rely on the following;
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the analysts regarding your request we have been advised that they are unable to provide an answer to question 4 as a key word search using “dating app” returns all connotations of this e.g. ‘apparent’ ‘application’ ‘apple’ etc. and every report returned would need to be manually retrieved and read so as to ascertain if any are pertinent to your request.  It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
As a gesture of goodwill, outside of the Freedom of information Act, we have supplied information, in relation to all the other questions in your request, retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I hope that this is of help to you and note that it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

When providing the numbers, please can you specify the nature of the crime (eg. sexual assault) and whether it resulted in a charge (y/n). Please treat each year as a calendar year from Jan-Dec, except for 2018 where Jan-June will suffice.
We have attached document that contains the information requested however Cleveland Police record and hold information by financial year and that is how we have provided it

Please note that any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.
 
The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

Reference: 9898-18
Date: 16/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th July 2018 and received by this office on that date and your refined request of 26th July 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

1) The total number of 999 calls received by your police force in each individual sequential year 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
a) Please see attached document.

2) For those 999 calls where a police officer(s) were deployed from your force, what was the average time from the call being received in your control room, to the officer(s) reaching their deployment destination, in the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018?
a) We don’t currently record these timings. However we do log the % of incidents arrived within time. For example, officers need to attend our Emergency incidents within 10 minutes of creation (if urban) or 20 minutes (if rural).  These %s are on the attached document.  Please note these figures are based on incidents that were created and closed as emergency incidents.

3) For those 999 calls which your force gave a high priority classification to, and where a police officer(s) were deployed, what was the average time from the call being received in your control room, to the officer(s) reaching their deployment destination, in the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
a) Please answer to question 2 on the attached document.

Please note that any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.
Please note that any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

Reference: 9896-18
Date: 27/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th July which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Please accept our apologies for the late response.  I note you seek access to the following information:

1. How do you collect data on the number of suspected or proven incidents of cuckooing in your area? Do you use markers or only collect when a crime is reported or prosecuted? When did you begin collecting this information?
a)  No information held
2. How many incidents of cuckooing in your force area have you recorded in 2018, 2017, 2016?
3. What are the ‘cuckooing’ related offences people can be arrested for? I understand a number of orders can be made including Property Closures, Full or partial Criminal Behaviour Orders, Exclude the Offender Injunctions and Community Protection Notices.
4. Have you worked with housing associations or local authority to issue Closure Orders, or Injunction orders, or criminal behaviour orders related to cuckooing?
a)  No

If these questions fail to get an answer with any data, would it be possible for you to search the term ‘cuckooing’ to see how many drug offences are related to the issue? 
a)  0

For question 2 and 3 we would rely on:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that “cuckooing” is not a term we use and to ascertain if any incidents are pertinent to your request would require all crimes being retrieved and read manually and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act. 

Reference: 9895-18
Date: 16/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th July 2018 and received by this office on that date and your refined request of 26th July 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

1. Please tell me the number of offences recorded between April 1st 2017 and March
31st 2018 under the following codes where the crime record includes the words ‘live
stream’, ‘live-stream’, ‘livestream’, ‘livestreaming’, ‘live-streaming’ or ‘live streaming’:
• 21 (sexual activity involving a child under 13)
• 22B (sexual activity involving a child under 16)
• 88/1 and 88/2 (meeting a child following sexual grooming)
• 88E (exposure and voyeurism)
• 71/17 Sexual Communication with a Child
2. Of the results from question one, for each offence, please run a search for the
following key words, and tell me how many of those offences included a reference to
each of these terms:
- Facebook
- Periscope
-Twitter
- Instagram
- Musical.ly
-Live.ly
-Twitch
-YouTube
- Facetime
-Skype
- Whatsapp call
- Snapchat
- Omegle
- Sarahah
- Steam
-Discord
-Tumblr
- Yellow
- Yubo
- Google hangouts
-Oovoo
-Xbox live
- Playstation network
3. Of the results from question 1, for each offence, how many were connected to the
following offence:
- 086/02 Take, permit to be taken or to make distribute or publish indecent photographs or pseudo - photographs of children
4. Of the results from question 1, please tell me:
(a) The age of the youngest victim recorded
(b) How many victims were within the following age bands:
- 11 and under;
- 12 to 15;
- 16 to 17.

 


Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

We have contacted the analysts in our PQR Performance Team regarding your request and refined request and we have been advised that a keyword search using  ‘live stream’, ‘live-stream’, ‘livestream’, ‘livestreaming’, ‘live-streaming’ or ‘live streaming’ would return every connotation include all references to ‘where I live’ etc. and there were approximately 1930 such records additionally a search using the HO codes/classes identified almost 400 records each of which would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request.  It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.
We would normally office advice on how best to refine your request but on this occasion I am at a loss as to what to suggest.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

Reference: 9894-18
Date: 16/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th July 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

For every calendar day in 2018 so far, the number of domestic-abuse related crimes that were recorded by police on that day.
I would also like to know, of those, how many were crimes involving violence against the person, and how many were sexual crimes.
I would also like to know how many (if any) were classed as a) rape; b) GBH; c) attempted murder; or d) murder
For clarity I would like the response in the form of a spreadsheet that looks like this, with the X's replaced by the actual data!
We have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve, please note the data held at the date of your request was only up to 30th June as these figures are only collated on a monthly basis at the end of each month.  There were no attempt murders within the timescale.

Please note that any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.


 

Reference: 9895-18
Date: 14/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 18th July.  I note you seek the following information:

1. How many constables are currently on restricted duties in the force and unable to take on confrontational operations.

2. How many of these constables are on restricted duties long term.


Having made enquiries having made enquiries below is all the information that we have been able to retrieve.  We have
84 constables are currently on restricted duties
70 constables are on restricted duties (long term)
We are not able to answer how many officers unable to take on confrontational operations, as we do not hold information of what officers could or couldn’t do.

Reference: 9891-18
Date: 15/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 17th July 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information:
1. Could you please tell me if you provide Restorative Justice Services involving sex offence cases?
2. If yes, how many people took up this service in 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18 and thus far in 2018/19
3. Please provide the numbers of all restorative justice cases, regardless of types of offence, for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18 and thus far in 2018/19
4. Please provide the numbers of all sex offence cases that result in a conviction 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18 and thus far in 2018/19

We have attached a document that holds all of the information that we have been able to retrieve in relation to this request. 
The information requested is recorded and held by Cleveland Police by financial year and that is how we have provided it.

Please note that any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

Reference: 9889-18
Date: 14/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 19th July.  I note you seek the following:

Can you please provide me in an EXCEL file (please make sure that your response will actually be in an EXCEL file not in PDF or WORD) with the total of offences for each of the last three full financial years where the victim occupation is recorded as a teacher and the primary location description is educational (school/University)?

I am basically looking for how many time a teacher was assaulted while they were in school, so please, if my wording is not clear, can you please suggest the best way for my request?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised the occupation field is not mandatory and therefore is not always used correctly and there  are approximately 708 crimes in 2017/18 where the location was either school or university that would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
 
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  I would suggest refining your request to a shorter time period but the analyst dealing with this request dip sampled some of the crimes to ascertain if any had the occupation field completed and none of them did.  Therefore I am unable to suggest how we can further to assist you.
 

Reference: 9888-18
Date: 15/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 17th July 2018 which was received in this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you.
 
Just going back to my previous request and reading an article in a local newspaper about policing costs for Newcastle and Sunderland, I would like to request the following information relating to Cleveland Police costs for Middlesbrough and Hartlepool for the 2017-2018 season.

Hartlepool vs Dover - 5th Aug 2017 – £0
Hartlepool vs Chester - 15th Aug 2017 – £0
Hartlepool vs AFC Fylde - 26th Aug 2017 – £0
Hartlepool vs Maidstone - 2nd Sept 2017 – £0
Hartlepool vs Dagenham - 9th Sept 2017 – £0
Hartlepool vs Eastleigh - 23rd Sept 2017 – £0
Hartlepool vs Barrow - 3rd October 2017 – £0
Hartlepool vs Sutton - 21st Oct 2017 – £0
Hartlepool vs Tranmere - 24th Oct 2017 – £0
Hartlepool vs Aldershot - 18th Nov 2017 – £0
Hartlepool vs Halifax - 21st Nov 2017 –- £0
Hartlepool vs Macclesfield - 2nd Dec 2017 – £1,742.34  
Hartlepool vs Maidenhead - 23rd Dec 2017 – 0 
Hartlepool vs Gateshead - Jan 1st 2018 – £2,713.92  
Hartlepool vs Wrexham - 20th Jan 2018 – £0
Hartlepool vs Woking - 17th Feb 2018 – £0
Hartlepool vs Ebbsfleet - 24th Feb 2018 - £0
Hartlepool vs Boreham Wood - 10th March 2018 – £0
Hartlepool vs Guiseley - 2nd Apr 2018 – £0
Hartlepool vs Leyton Orient - 17th Apr 2018 – £0 
Hartlepool vs Torquay - 21st Apr 2018 –- £0 

Middlesbrough vs Sheffield United - Aug 12th 2017 – £17749.98
Middlesbrough vs Burton - Aug 15th 2017 – 0
Middlesbrough vs Preston - Aug 26th 2017 – 0
Middlesbrough vs QPR - Sept 16th 2017 – 0
Middlesbrough vs Norwich - Sept 26th 2017 – 0 
Middlesbrough vs Brentford - Sept 30th 2017 – 0 
Middlesbrough vs Cardiff - Oct 21st 2017 – £809.58
Middlesbrough vs Sunderland - Nov 5th 2017 – £18626.01
Middlesbrough vs Birmingham - Nov 22nd 2017 - 0
Middlesbrough vs Derby - Nov 25th 2017 – £7168.71
Middlesbrough vs Ipswich - Dec 9th 2017 – 0 
Middlesbrough vs Bolton - Dec 26th 2017 –£9204.72
Middlesbrough vs Aston Villa - Dec 30th 2017 – £7337.88
Middlesbrough vs Sunderland (FA Cup) Jan 6th 2018 - £20810.82
Middlesbrough vs Fulham - Jan 13th 2018 – 0
Middlesbrough vs Reading - Feb 10th 2018 – 0 
Middlesbrough vs Hull - Feb 20th 2018 – 0 
Middlesbrough vs Leeds - March 2nd 2018 – £20431.56
Middlesbrough vs Barnsley - March 10th 2018 – 0
Middlesbrough vs Wolves - March 30th 2018 - £5,523.54
Middlesbrough vs Nottingham Forest - April 7th 2018 – 0 
Middlesbrough vs Bristol City - April 14th 2018 – 0 
Middlesbrough vs Milwall - April 28th 2018 – £18,936.41
Middlesbrough vs Aston Villa - May 12th 2018 – £19,163.70

Please note that any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832

Reference: 9887-18
Date: 16/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 16th July 2018 and received by this office on 17th July 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

Since June 1st 2018

1. How many times have warranted officers and/or PCSOs had occasion to visit the premises to deal with any on-going event or incident?
a. How many of the events were anti-social behaviour?
b. How many of the events involved criminal, or suspected criminal acts, or believed to have been criminal acts?
c. How many people of any age group who are resident or work at the premises, have been arrested for any offence/suspected offence; charged with any offence; or reported for summons for any offence?
2. How many times have warranted officers and/or PCSOs been called upon by staff working at the premises to assist with unruly behaviour of the residents (children or young persons) who reside there?
3. How many times have warranted officers and/or PCSOs been called upon by staff working at the premises, or any other person(s), to deal with and/or investigate, alleged or actual criminal offences committed by the residents (children or young persons) who reside there?
4. How many events/incidents involving residents or staff at the premises have been referred to:
a. Other partners, agencies, or organisations (which partners, agencies, or organisations); and/or
b. Been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service?
5. On how many occasions have police resources been deployed to: deal or assist with any persons who
a. have left the premises without authority; or
b. have been absent from the premises; or
c. have been missing from the premises?
6. In total, how many warranted officers and/or PCSOs have been occupied (including deployment) to any event or incident that falls into any of the points in 1, 2, and 3 above?

a) Following enquiries with the Quality & Compliance Management Team we have identified 5 incidents, within the time scale of your request that relate to the named premises.  However to provide any other data, could, if put with other information you may hold or obtain, lead the identification of an individual which is against the principles of the Data Protection Act.

Reference: 9885-18
Date: 15/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th July 2018 and received by this office on 16th July 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information:
1. The number of reported ATM thefts at convenience stores in your constabulary for the year 2006.
2. The number of reported ATM thefts at convenience stores in your constabulary for the year 2007.
3. The number of reported ATM thefts at convenience stores in your constabulary for the year 2016.
4. The number of reported ATM thefts at convenience stores in your constabulary for the year 2017.
a) We have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve in relation to your request.  We have only included crimes where cash has been stolen from the machine.  I should be noted that in some instances a location has not been recorded in the report.     

Reference: 9882-18
Date: 14/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 16th July.  I note you seek the following:

Q1 How many arrests in connection with drug driving offences your force made between March 2015 and June 2018, broken down by month.
Q2 How many people your force charged with drug driving offences between March 2015 and June 2018, broken down by month.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9877-18
Date: 13/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 13th July 2018 and received by this office on that date.  I note you seek the following information:

I am seeking to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, regarding cases of witness intimidation – as specified under Section 51 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
I want to access data held by the Force which outlines the number of referrals, investigations and successfully prosecuted cases of witness intimidation. That is, when an attempt is made to threaten or persuade a witness not to give evidence to the police or courts, or to give evidence in a way that is favourable to the defendant.
As you will be aware, Section 51 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 lists two relevant offences:
• s.51(1) creates an offence directed at acts against a person assisting in the investigation of an offence or is a witness or potential witness or juror or potential juror whilst an investigation or trial is in progress; and
• s.51(2) creates an offence directed at acts against a person who assisted in an investigation of an offence or who was a witness or juror after an investigation or trial has been concluded.

Could you please provide the following data, broken down by year, starting from January 1st, 2014 to the date this FOI request is processed:
1. Number of allegations of witness intimidation received by the police force
2014 – 35
2015 – 47
2016 – 66
2017 – 68
2018 – 31 to 17.07.2018
2. Number of investigations into witness intimidation by the police force
a) We are unable to provide information regarding the number of investigations as this is not data that Cleveland Police record – Do we assume that all allegations are investigated
3. Number of individuals charged for witness intimidation
2014 – 15 Charged/Summonsed and 5 Detected/Charged
2015 – 19 Charged/Summonsed
2016 – 25 Charged/Summonsed
2017 – 7 Charged/Summonsed and 19 Charged
2018 – 5 Charged to 17.07.2018

4. Number of individuals successfully prosecuted for witness intimidation
a) We are unable to provide an answer to this question as whilst the police would arrest and charge to court it is the decisions of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute and it is the decision of HM Courts Service to determine guilt and therefore information regarding successful prosecutions would be held by them.


 

Reference: 9876-18
Date: 13/08/2018 Please could you answer the following:
1. Has your force ever explored using the services of Meltwater (Media Intelligence and Social Monitoring)?
a) Yes

If yes:
1a. What services did your force explore using Meltwater for?
a) Media Monitoring
2. Has your force ever had a contract for services with Meltwater?
a) No
If yes:
2a. What was the purpose of those services?
2b. How much did your force pay for this contract with Meltwater?

3. Has your force ever engaged with other media intelligence and social monitoring companies/professionals?
a) No
If yes, please state:
3a. Names of companies/professionals
3b. Purpose of engagement
3c. Contract length where the engagement was contractual
 

 

Reference: 9875-18
Date: 13/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 12th July 2018 which was received in this office on 13th July 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you. 

You asked;
I hereby respectfully request disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000 of the numbers of Police Officers within your force who have experienced a lower limb injury either on or off duty over the last 3 years from 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2018.
This should be sourced from the appropriate Injury on Duty form(s) and/or return to work following sickness forms used in Force. The data required for each instance is as follows: 
- Total number of officers this request relates to
- Area of lower limb affected (eg: Knee, ankle, achilles etc)
- Total number & type of incidents (eg: Assault, fall, strain, sporting activity etc)
- The length of sickness reported following the injury or medically retired
 
Below is all of the information we have been able to retrieve from our Specialist Support and Planning Unit
 

Count of Body Part Injured

Column Labels

 

 

 

 

Row Labels

2015

2016

2017

2018

Grand Total

Contact with a fixed or stationary object

1

2

 

 

3

Leg

1

1

 

 

2

Toe

 

1

 

 

1

Contact with a moving vehicle

1

 

2

 

3

Foot

 

 

1

 

1

Knee

1

 

 

 

1

Leg

 

 

1

 

1

Contact with a moving, flying or falling object

 

 

1

3

4

Foot

 

 

1

 

1

Knee

 

 

 

1

1

Leg

 

 

 

1

1

Toe

 

 

 

1

1

Fall from height

 

4

 

 

4

Ankle

 

2

 

 

2

Knee

 

2

 

 

2

Getting into/out of vehicle

3

2

2

1

8

Ankle

1

1

 

1

3

Knee

2

1

2

 

5

Injured by an animal

3

3

 

 

6

Calf

1

 

 

 

1

Knee

 

1

 

 

1

Leg

2

2

 

 

4

Injured in PVI

 

1

2

 

3

Calf

 

1

 

 

1

Foot

 

 

1

 

1

Knee

 

 

1

 

1

Injured whilst climbing

 

1

 

 

1

Knee

 

1

 

 

1

Injured whilst handling, lifting or carrying

1

2

1

4

8

Ankle

 

 

1

 

1

Foot

 

 

 

1

1

Knee

1

1

 

3

5

Leg

 

1

 

 

1

Injured whilst in foot pursuit

6

7

10

3

26

Ankle

2

1

1

2

6

Calf

 

2

 

 

2

Foot

1

 

2

 

3

Knee

 

2

2

 

4

Leg

3

2

4

1

10

Toe

 

 

1

 

1

Injured whilst personal safety training

3

2

1

 

6

Ankle

1

 

1

 

2

Knee

2

2

 

 

4

Injured whilst PSU training

2

1

1

 

4

Ankle

1

1

 

 

2

Leg

1

 

1

 

2

Injured whilst restraining a person

18

11

9

4

42

Ankle

 

 

1

 

1

Calf

1

 

 

 

1

Knee

13

8

3

3

27

Leg

4

2

5

1

12

Toe

 

1

 

 

1

Injured whilst riding a motorcycle/pedal cycle

1

1

2

1

5

Knee

1

1

2

1

5

Injured whilst running

3

7

3

 

13

Ankle

 

1

 

 

1

Knee

1

1

1

 

3

Leg

2

5

2

 

9

Insect bite

 

 

1

 

1

Knee

 

 

1

 

1

Not Entered

 

1

 

 

1

Foot

 

1

 

 

1

Physically assaulted by a person

13

9

9

1

32

Calf

1

 

 

 

1

Knee

5

3

4

 

12

Leg

7

6

5

1

19

Slipped, tripped or fell on same level

11

11

7

1

30

Ankle

4

3

5

1

13

Foot

1

 

 

 

1

Knee

5

5

2

 

12

Leg

1

3

 

 

4

Grand Total

66

65

51

18

200

 

 

 

Reference: 9874-18
Date: 13/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 12th July which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Q1. Over the following time periods, how many individuals were arrested for domestic burglary under Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968?

2016 Domestic burglary – 691 Aggravated Domestic Burglary – 19
2017 Domestic burglary – 690 Aggravated Domestic Burglary – 28
2018 Domestic burglary – 328 Aggravated Domestic Burglary - 19
 

 

2016

2017

2018 (H1)

Number of people charged with domestic burglary

279

285

122

Number of people charged with aggravated domestic burglary

9

11

6

Q2. Over the same time periods below, how many domestic burglaries under Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 were committed by those in the following situations:

 

 

2016

2017

2018 (H1)

While on bail and being investigated for separate offence

 

 

 

While on bail and being charged for a separate offence

 

 

 

While on bail pending a trial date for a separate offence

 

 

 

While serving a suspended sentence for a separate offence

 

 

 

While wearing an electric tag for a separate offence

 

 

 

While on probation for a separate offence

 

 

 

Q3. Over the time periods below, how many aggravated domestic burglaries under Section 10 of the Theft Act 1968 were committed by those in the following situations:

 

 

2016

2017

2018 (H1)

While on bail and being investigated for separate offence

 

 

 

While on bail and being charged for a separate offence

 

 

 

While on bail pending a trial date for a separate offence

 

 

 

While serving a suspended sentence for a separate offence

 

 

 

While wearing an electric tag for a separate offence

 

 

 

While on probation for a separate offence

 

 

 

For question 2 and 3 we would rely on the below:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that we do not hold all this information and for what we do all arrests would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act. 

Reference: 9873-18
Date: 13/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 12th July 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

In 2017, what was the total number of adults arrested by the police?
a) 14099
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1300 1145 1244 1195 1336 1119 1211 1094 1163 1147 1102 1043

In 2017, what was the total number of adult arrestees who had a mental disorder, including intellectual disability

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having made enquiries regarding your request we have been advised that there are approximately 14099 arrest records for 2017 that would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they contained information indicating that the detained person had a mental disorder or intellectual disability.  It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
As a gesture of goodwill, outside of the Freedom of information Act, we have supplied information, relative to question 1 of your request, retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I hope that this is of help to you and note that it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

 


 

Reference: 9871-18
Date: 14/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 11th July.  Please accept our apologies for the late response due to relocation of the Police Headquarters.  I note you seek the following:

I would ask for the following data points:
Name of the police station
Full address
Is/was there a public counter (yes/no)
Is the station open or closed as of July 2018?
Date opened (as a minimum – year and month) Date closed (as a minimum – year and month)

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9869-18
Date: 30/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 10th July 2018 and received in this office on 11th July 2018.  I note your comment regarding a previous request and offer our sincere apologies for this which was due to staffing issues within the office.  Below are the questions raised in your request and then information we have retrieved for you?

1. Network Provider(s) - Please provide me with the network provider name e.g. EE, Telefonica, Vodafone, Three
a) The network provider is currently with Telefonica but the Force is moving to EE

2. Annual Average Spend- Can you please provide me with the average annual spend over the 3 years. If this is a new contract can you please provide the estimated annual spend. –
a) The budget is £73k per annum

3. Number of Connections- Number of connections for each network provider. Please split the connection into the following, Voice Only, Voice and Data and Data. Please provide me with a figure for each one including if the organisation doesn’t have any.
a) The EE Contract is for minimum of 1500 voice and data connections with additional voice only will follow. The force is currently with Telefonica, there are 1325 voice and data and 647 voice only.

4. Duration of the contract- please state if the contract also includes contract extensions for each provider.
a) The Telefonica contract ends at end of July 2018 (agreeing transition to EE). The contract was awarded on 18th May for 3 years

5. Contract Start Date- please can you provide me with the start date of the signed agreement.  Please do not provide me with the framework contract date I require the contract dates of the signed agreement.
a) The EE contract commenced 14th June 2018.

6. Contract Expiry Date- please can you provide me with the expiry date of the signed agreement. Please do not provide me with the framework contract date I require the contract dates of the signed agreement. If the contract is rolling please state.
a) The EE contract runs until 13/06/2021

7. Contract Review Date- Please can you provide me with a date on when the organisation plans to review this contract.
a) This is in transition planning stages; the contract will be managed quarterly with review to commence 2021

8. The person within the organisation responsible for this particular contract. Can you send me the full contact details Contact Name, Job Title, Contact Number and direct email address for each network provider? If full contact details cannot be provided please send me their actual job title.
a) Claire Wrightson – Head of Procurement and Fleet, 01642 301224
[email protected]

Please note that any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

Once again please accept our apologies for failing to respond to your previous request, if we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9868-18
Date: 10/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 9th July 2018 and received by this office on 10th July 2018.  I note you seek the following:

Please can you tell me how many police officers in your force have been under investigation for perpetrating domestic abuse related incidents in each of the years 2017, 2016, and 2015?
a) We have made enquiries with the Cleveland Police Department for Standards and Ethics and they have provided us with the below information relating to Complaint/Conduct data located on DSE complaints system.
2017 – 1 
2016 – 3 
2015 – 1 

Reference: 9865-18
Date: 07/08/2018 I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information from you:

* The software used by the Media/Communications team to manage press enquiries, send press releases and maintain a press contacts database. Please specify the value and the expiry date of any contracts associated with the tools you use.
a)  Microsoft Word and Outlook
* The software used by the Media/Communications team to monitor the media. Please specify the value and the expiry date of any contracts associated with the tools you use.
a)  Meltwater expires March 2019
* The software used by the Media/Communications team to manage and store interactions with stakeholders (e.g. the media, regulators, government agencies, the community, the public).
a)  Microsoft word
Please specify the value and the expiry date of any contracts associated with the tools you use.
* The software used by the Public Affairs or any other relevant team to monitor the political environment and Parliament and log interactions with politicians, civil servants, lobbying bodies, trade unions, etc. Please specify the value and the expiry date of any contracts associated with the tools you use.
a)  Not monitored.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9864-18
Date: 09/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 6th July 2018 and received in this office on 9th July 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

Family liaison officer – freedom of information request
1/ In the following years, how many qualified Family Liaison officers were employed by the force?
2002 – 2003 
2007 – 2008 
2012 – 2013 
2017 – 2018
a) Cleveland Police have, as at the date of your request, 123 Officers listed as having Family Liaison skills however our HR and Training Departments have advised that this is a skill that any officer can obtain but it is a choice as to whether or not they chose to use it.  There 56 officers recorded as available for call out, of these 9 are to be used for Road Death/Serious injury only. 
Please Note there is no end date on any FLO skill.
2/ In the following years, how much funding (in £) was invested in family liaison training and support by the force?
2002 – 2003 
2007 – 2008 
2012 – 2013 
2017 – 2018
a) We have made enquiries with our and Training Departments in relation to this question and have been advised by Finance that unless the training was provided by and external supplier we would be unable to retrieve such information as the information would be recorded under the name of the provider.

3/ In the following years, how many officers were trained as family liaison officers by the force?
2002-2003 – no training took place 
2007-2008 – 11 Officers
2012-2013 – 22 Officers
2017-2018 – 23 Officers plus there were another 20 officers who received refresher training

Reference: 9863-18
Date: 07/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 9th July.  I note you seek the following:

I would be grateful if you could provide, for each road traffic offence recorded on Pentip as having happened between 1 March 2015 and 28 February 2018 (inclusive):

* the date and time at which the offence occurred,
* the offence name or offence code, and
* whether or not the offence was discovered by an automatic safety camera (as opposed to being discovered by a police officer etc).

As far as practicable, please provide this information in a re-usable format such as a CSV, ODS or Excel file or similar. Finally, please let me know if I can re-use the information provided under the Open Government Licence.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve the data highlighted in red are the offence which have been detected by a safety camera.

This information (data set) is being made available under the Open Government Licence (OGL) full details of which can be found at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk.  An attribution statement should be cited, when using the dataset, in your products and or applications.

Reference: 9862-18
Date: 08/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 6th July 2018 and received in this office on 9th July 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

You requested;
The projected costs of maintenance of the police estate over the next decade, broken down with estimate costs where possible.
a) We have made enquiries with our Finance Department and they have provided the figures detailed below.

 

 

2018/19

2019/20

2010/21

2021/22

Premises - Grounds Maintenance

18,950

706,800

12,318

12,318

Premises - Planned Maintenance

309,550

201,208

201,208

201,208

Premises - Repairs & Maintenance

378,300

245,895

245,895

245,895

Total

706,800

459,420

459,420

459,420

 

These figures cover the years of the Medium Term Financial Plan. The reduction between 18/19 and 19/20 is the reduced maintenance etc. associated with the move to the new Community Safety Hub (CSH) compared to the old Police Headquarters.  There are no projections beyond 2021/22.

 

Reference: 9861-18
Date: 08/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 6th July 2018 received by this office on 9th July 2018.  I note you seek the following information:

1. The number of applications made by the force for a Drug Dealing Telecommunications Restriction Order until 30 June 2018.  (Please break down by month).
2. The number of applications by the force for Drug Dealing Telecommunications Restriction Order which were granted until 30 June 2018 (please break down by month).
3 The number of phone lines which have been shut down by DDRTOs applied for by the force (by month).
4. The name of the communications provider in each case where a phone line was shut down by DDTROS applied for by the force.
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;

Sections 23 is an absolute exemptions, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.  In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.
Sections 31(3) being a prejudiced based qualified exemptions, there is a requirement for us to evidence harm confirming or denying information is held and also consider the public interest.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31
By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the question exists, would enable the public to see where public funds are being spent.  This could lead to a better public awareness, reduce crime or lead to more information being provided by the public.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S31
By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the question exists, law enforcement tactics could be compromised which could hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime could be committed and individuals placed at risk.

Balance test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so could undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of national security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any other information relevant to your request exists is not made out.  None of the above can be viewed as an inference that any other information does or does not exist.

Reference: 9859-18
Date: 07/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 6th July 2018 which was received in this office on that date an in which you requested the following information:

The number of recorded offences following a collision where a vehicle or person has failed to stop (hit and run) when a person has been seriously injured or killed.

I am requesting this information for the financial years, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Please include the location (which town or city) of where the incident took place.
What was the final outcome of each incident.

Following a request for clarification you advised that
I would like to know the number of recorded offences following a road collision where a driver has failed to stop (hit and run) and someone (eg a pedestrian, cyclist, driver or passenger in another vehicle) has been seriously injured or killed.
I am looking for information dating from January 2015 to the date of this email (9 July 2018)
For each incident, please provide the approximate location (either town/city and/or postcode district) where it took place and the month and year of the incident, eg Jan 2016, Mar 2017 etc. 

We have contacted our Traffic Management & Casualty Reduction Team and that have provided the information detailed below which is all that we record. 

Local Authority

2015/16

2016/17

2017/18

Total

Hartlepool

3

3

2

8

Middlesbrough

6

2

3

11

Redcar & Cleveland

2

1

3

6

Stockton-on-Tees

5

4

3

12

Total

16

10

11

37

 

 

Reference: 9857-18
Date: 07/08/2018 I write in response to your request for information received in this office on 6th July.  I note you seek the following:

Please provide me with:
1. A copy of the Stafford statement documents given to complainants in rape cases
2. A copy of the Stafford statement documents given to complainants in cases of GBH

These should be provided in their current form and any other versions that have been used over the past five years.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document which is a blank MG11 form and is only used in specific cases where 3rd party material might be relevant.  Some of these may be Rape or other offences against the person if applicable.  As far as we are aware this is only version that we are able to retrieve.

 

Reference: 9856-18
Date: 07/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 6th July.  I note you seek the following:

1. How many individuals had conducted energy weapons (also known as electroshock weapons), for example TASERS, discharged against them in each the calendar years 2014-2017.
a)
2014 – 15
2015 – 12
2016 – 17
2017 – 20
 
2. Based on data held on searchable electronic systems or databases concerning incidents where electroshock weapons were discharged, could you please tell me whether any of the individuals who had electroshock weapons discharged against them are recorded as having any of the following implantable medical devices: neurostimulator, brain electrode(s). deep brain stimulation, deep brain stimulators, spinal cord stimulator, spinal cord stimulation, spinal cord electrode(s).
3. Please provide me with a copy of any internal documents concerning the use of electroshock weapons against individuals with implantable medical devices such as pacemakers or implantable defibrillators, or advising of precautions that should be taken in the use of electroshock weapons in relation to medical devices.
4. Please similarly provide copies of any investigations, reports, technical evaluations, or assessments on this matter that are possessed or have been produced by your force.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  For questions 2-4 the answer is no information is held.

Reference: 9855-18
Date: 07/08/2018 I write in response to your request for information received in this office on 6th July.  I note you seek the following:

Please could you conduct a free text search of your incident log on the words “catfish” and “catfishing”.
Please can you tell me how many incidents containing the words “catfish” or “catfishing” were logged in the calendar years (1 Jan- 31 Dec) 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and so far in 2018?

Having made enquiries within the Force we have identified 2 incidents in 2016 and 2017.

 

Reference: 9854-18
Date: 30/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 4th July 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

Under the FOIA 2000, could you please send me a copy of your data inventories please and the lawful reasons you process your data.
Please can you tell me?
1. Please state how many minors, aged 10 to 17, have been arrested for offences relating to the supply of controlled drugs between January 2017 and June 2018.
a) 22
2. Please disclose how many of those minors have been charged with an offence and break this down by the age of the suspect, and the offence they were charged with, the class of type of drug involved
a) None
3. Please state the number of minors arrested by their county of residence (by county, I mean the administrative county of the address you have on record. I will also be happy with either postal town/city if this is easier to provide).
a) We are unable to provide a breakdown by County however we have provided the information by Police District.
Hartlepool – 4 
Middlesbrough – 11 
Redcar & Cleveland – 4 
Stockton – 3 
4. If possible, please can you offer any explanation as to why children/young people may be involved in this type of illegal activity?
a) We are unable to answer this question as it is asking for opinion and the Freedom of Information Act relates to Information that is held only.
5. How many of those arrested remain under investigation as of 30 June 2018.
a) 7

 

Reference: 9853-18
Date: 30/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 4th July.  I note you seek the following information:

In each of the separate time periods:
March 1st 2016 and 30th June 2016
March 1st 2017 and 30th June 2017
March 1st 2018 and 30th June 2018
1. How many offences involving knives or bladed instruments were recorded by your force?
2. Please list the names, gender and ages (if known) of any victims of homicide involving knives or bladed instruments during the above period.
3. Please state the overall number of victims of crimes involving knives or bladed instruments during that period, regardless of whether they were injured or not.
4. Please group the victims in question 3 into age ranges (12 and under, 13 to 16, 17 to 19, 20 to 24, 25 to 29, 30 to 34, 35 to 39 and 40 and over) and gender.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have provided a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.  The analyst has provided data using the Home office definition of ‘Knife Crime’.  Please note we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the data with regards to age owing to inaccuracies of dates of birth/earliest dates of the offence.

Reference: 9852-18
Date: 30/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 4th July 2018 which was received in this office on that date.  I note you seek the following information:

Could you please provide figures relating to moped enabled crimes between June 2016 until now (June 2018). I understand the volume of data may result in this request falling under section 12(1) of the act. I therefore ask specifically for :
-Number of proceedings ,
-Number of successful convictions ,
-Number of recorded moped enabled crime,
-Number of recorded moped thefts.

We have made enquiries with the analysts that deal with such information and have been advised that in relation to Stolen Mopeds (moped thefts) the below breakdown applies
2016 – 38
Charge/Summons – 0
No Suspect/Insufficient Evidence – 3
Police - named suspect, victim support but evidential difficulties – 0 
Police decide insufficient evidence to prosecute – 2 
Suspect not identified enquiry complete – 32 
Victim withdrawn support – 1 
On-going – 0
2017 – 26
Charge/Summons – 1
No Suspect/Insufficient Evidence – 0
Police - named suspect, victim support but evidential difficulties – 6 
Police decide insufficient evidence to prosecute – 0 
Suspect not identified enquiry complete – 19 
Victim withdrawn support – 0 
On-going – 0  
2018 – 09 to date of request
Charge/Summons – 0
No Suspect/Insufficient Evidence – 0
Police - named suspect, victim support but evidential difficulties – 0 
Police decide insufficient evidence to prosecute – 0 
Suspect not identified enquiry complete – 8 
Victim withdrawn support – 0 
On-going – 1

In relation to Moped enable crime there were only 2 recorded, one in 2017 and one in 2018.  The outcome for both was “Suspect not identified enquiry complete”.

In relation to the remaining two questions of your request we would advise that Proceedings are the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service and convictions the responsibility of HM Courts service and information would be held by them.  

Reference: 9850-18
Date: 30/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 4th July 2018 and received in this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request, in our acknowledgment we advised that any information provided would be in relation to recorded/validated crimes and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you for the last 3 financial years.
How many cases of sexual assault/rape have been investigated by your Police force within the last 3 years, and how many resulted in no charges being brought against suspected offenders in each of those years and, where possible, reasons why they were unsuccessful investigations?
          What groups of individuals are committing these crimes, particularly how many are committed by under 16s, those aged 16 to 24, those aged 25 to 39 and those aged 40 or older in each of the last 3 years
How many of the crimes investigated have been committed by British and Irish nationals, how many have been committed by foreign nationals from other European countries, and how many by foreign nationals from outside Europe in each of the last 3 years?
We have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve.  It should be noted that the analyst who carried out the research has advised that the data comes with a severe health warning, the ages are defined as the date of birth and the date the crime first occurred so therefore if the first date a crime occurred was in the year 2000 and the IP was born in 1990 the IP would be 10 years old at the earliest date of the offence. However if a mistake was made and the IP’s date of birth was incorrectly input as 1980 the IP would be showing as 20 and not the correct age of 10. In the same token, if the first date was incorrectly added, the age of the offender would be wrong again.
We are unable to break the information down into nationalities as they are often not recorded.  The analyst carried out a dip sample to ascertain if it was worth doing a manual search however all of those dip sampled did not have an offender nationality recorded.


 

Reference: 9847-18
Date: 27/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 3rd July.  I note you seek information regarding older sex offenders specifically data pertaining to sex offences recorded between 2015 – 2017 where the offender was aged 60 or older.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having made enquiries within the Force   the analyst has attached a document with 6 tabs.  This information alone has taken 17 hours to compile.  The analyst has stated that there are two tabs for each year 2015, 2016 and 2017 (calendar years) – one tab of the two showing all sexual offences (including indecent exposure etc) and the second tab showing all sexual offences with a positive outcome. In each of the sheets for positive outcomes, the data has been categorised into the victim’s age and gender and the offender’s age and gender.

We are unable to provide accurate data for ethnicities, relationships or locations as there are too many ‘unknowns’ to give a true comparison.   In order to gain this information each crime would  require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  As you may be aware that if any part of the request exceeds the time stipulated the whole request does however on this occasion as a gesture of goodwill outside of the act we have provided what information has been compiled before the time limit was exceeded.

With all information provided with ages, please note this data comes with a warning that we cannot guarantee the accuracy of this data and that several of these crimes are historic but the ‘dates between’ may not accurate so the age of the victim can sometimes wrong; for example, one of the crimes had the offence occurring between the years of 1970 to 1975, however the victim was not born until 1972 so the age was showing as a minus. Some of the dates of birth are missing and show as ‘unknown’ and some of the aggrieved persons are Regina.

Reference: 9845-18
Date: 27/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated and received by this office on 3rd July 2018.   Below are the questions raised in your request and all of the information that we have been able to retrieve for you.

1. For the last financial year 2017/2018 how much money was paid to officers and civilian staff of your force as compensation for personal injuries after they brought or threatened legal action against your force? (If possible please EXCLUDE the legal fees that may have been paid in these cases so that the answer is just the compensation received by the injured parties).
a)  For the last financial year 2017/2018 the sum of £7050.00 was paid to officers/civilian staff in respect of claims for personal Injuries. This does not include CRU (compensation recovery unit) payments.

2 How many individual claims did this represent?
a)  2

3. For all payments in excess of £5,000 that were paid please state (i) the amount of compensation, (ii) the cost to the force of the legal fees associated with the case, (iii) if the employee was an officer, a PCSO or a member of civilian staff and (iv) a one sentence description of the nature of the claim.
a)  None

 

Reference: 9844-18
Date: 27/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 2nd July and received by this office on 3rd July 2018.  I note you seek the following:

1. How many active policies regarding police protocols do you have that are in the public domain (also known as ‘Not Protectively Marked’)?
a)  None, we don’t currently publish policies.   Not protectively marked is no longer relevant

2. How many full-time police officers are employed on policy units in your Police Force?
a)  None

3. What are the ranks of those police officers?
a)  N/A

4. How many officers in each of those ranks?
a)  N/A

5. How many full-time civil staff members are employed on policy units in your Police Force?
a)  None full time, one member of staff has responsibility for the administration of the Force Policy site to ensure periodic review is conducted but this is not their only role. Policy owners with expertise in the specific area of business relating to the policy have responsibility for ensuring the periodic reviews are completed and if a change to legislation or other changes require a review of policy.

6. What are the Grades of those staff members?
a) SO1 – PO2

7. How many members of staff in each grade?
a)  N/A

Having made enquiries within the Force the above is all the information that we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9843-18
Date: 27/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 29th June.  I note you seek the following:

For each question I am seeking information for each of the following time periods (financial years):
 
i)   2014/15
ii)  2015/16
iii) 2016/17
iv)  2017/18 to date (most recent data available)

1. How many nights did individuals spend in a police cell as a result of cannabis related offences (e.g. possession, dealing)?
2. How many of those arrested due to cannabis related offences (e.g. possession, dealing), were released without charge?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request this information is not available in a retrievable format.  We would have to search every drug arrest for those relating to “Possession of a Class B drug” so as to establish if it was cannabis then open the Custody record and read through to ascertain if any are pertinent to your request.  It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.

Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.
 

Reference: 9842-18
Date: 26/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 29th June 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information from Cleveland police force.
Please provide the number of unsolved murder cases in your constabulary’s area from January 1st 1968 — January 1st 2018.
a) 7.
I would also like the breakdown of how many of those unsolved murder cases have female victims and how many have male victims.
a) 4 Male and 3 Female

Reference: 9841-18
Date: 27/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 29th June.  I note you seek the following:

1.      The number of times the legislation has been enforced in the police force area in relation to the offence of smoking in a private vehicle carrying passengers under the age of 18 since its introduction in England and Wales in October 2015.  The two relevant offences are; ‘Smoking in a vehicle in which a child was present’ and ‘Allow smoking in a vehicle with a child’. 
Please can this be broken down (preferably by calendar years 2015-18) into;
•         The number of verbal warnings recorded on local force computer systems
•         The number of Fixed penalty notices/Traffic Offence Reports (TORs) issued.
a)  Both offences are contrary to Regulation 11 (1A) of the smoke-free (exemptions and vehicles) regulations 2007 and the Health Act 2006. No fixed penalties have been issued for this offence by Cleveland Police. The Local Councils enforce this therefore this will be information held by them.

2.      The number of Fixed penalty notices/ TORs issued at the roadside for seatbelt offences in both 2016 and 2017 (although calendar year is preferable, I am happy to accept data for 2016/17 and 2017/18). I would request that within this total number the specific figures can be provided for those matters relating to seatbelt offences involving children (under 14 years) for this offence.
a) We have made enquiries with the Central Ticket Office and below is the information that they have provided.
In 2016 a total of 281 fixed penalties were issued for seatbelt offences; 29 of these related to seatbelt offences involving children under the age of 14.
In 2017 a total of 252 fixed penalties were issued for seatbelt offences; 19 of these related to seatbelt offences involving children under the age of 14

The above information is all of the information that we have been able to retrieve to answer the above questions; additionally we have included a list of addresses for the four Local council for your information.

Hartlepool Borough Council
Civic Centre
Victoria Road
Hartlepool TS24 8AY
Tel: 01429 266522

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
Municipal Buildings
Church Road
Stockton-on-Tees
Ts18 1LD
Tel: 01642 393939

Middlesbrough Borough Council
PO Box 500
Middlesbrough
TS1 9FT
Tel: 01642 245432

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council
Redcar & Cleveland House
Kirkleatham Street
Redcar
TS10 1RT
Tel: 01642 774774

Reference: 9840-18
Date: 06/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 27th June.  Please accept our apologies for the late response.  I note you seek the following:

Do you have any specially trained officers in Mental Health i.e. officers that specialise in mental health or have completed additional mental health training to the standard police training? If yes, how many?
a)  We employ three officers as Mental Health liaison but their role is more to problem solve and work in partnership with mental health services rather than deal directly with people suffering from a mental health crisis. They attend some training courses provided by partner agencies but we provide no specific specialist training for them.

Do you have a Mental Health Street Triage scheme in operation?
a)   Yes
If you have previously had a Mental Health Street Triage scheme or similar in operation, when did this go live and when did it cease to operate? What was the reason this ceased to operate?
a)  N/A
If no Street Triage scheme ever, do you have any other form of police/mental health partnership scheme in operation? If yes, please can you provide details of what this is?
a)  N/A

Additional requests where a Street Triage scheme is in operation

When did your Street Triage scheme start operating?
a)  August 2012
What region/regions does your scheme(s) operate in and who is the partnering NHS Trust (s)?
(number of schemes per force)
a) Our scheme operates across the entire Cleveland Police area in partnership with Tees Esk Wear Valley Trust (TEWV)

What model does your street triage scheme take? (Response vehicle / Direct phone line /
Control room mental health worker / Crisis hub / a mix)
a)  Our scheme works 7 days a week with a mental health nurse working the hours of 12pm to midnight. They have access to a vehicle and a police radio, and if a police officer is deployed to a job involving mental health then Street Triage will be asked to review and potentially deploy to it. If deployment is believed to be necessary then they will attend alongside the police officer and work in partnership to identify the best outcome and provide expert advice. We all employ a Control Room Mental Health Worker.

Has your Street Triage scheme changed from one of the above models to another, since it began
operating? If yes, why?
a)  No, it has been this model since it began

What are the hours of operation?
a)  12 till midnight daily

What is the total staff force on Street Triage, including MH staff where known?
a)  4x mental health nurses

Do you have officers permanently assigned to the Street Triage scheme? If yes, how many?
a)  No
Who funds your Street Triage? How much does Street Triage cost the force per year?
a)  The scheme is entirely funded by TEWV

Has your Street Triage scheme ever been formally evaluated? If yes, when?
a)  We do not hold the data you will need to request this from TEWV.

How many people were seen by the Street Triage scheme 2016/17?
a) We do not hold the data you will need to request this from TEWV.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9839-18
Date: 25/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 27th June 2018 and received by this office on 28th June 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

This request is to do with how many police hours have been spent attending to situations which involve people with severe mental health issues.
 
1. How many incidents have officers responded to in which mental health issues have been recorded as a factor in the following years?
a.2015
b.2016
c.2017
 
2. In how many cases were police cells used as 'places of safety' for people experiencing a mental health crisis in the following years?
a.2015 – 16 
b.2016 – 11 
c.2017 – 8 

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request we have been advised that there are approximately 5742 incidents in 2017 alone with a mental health indicator and to try and ascertain how long an officer or officers have spent on each incident would require the manual retrieval and reading to ascertain if the  information was recorded, it is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
As a gesture of goodwill, outside of the Freedom of information Act, we have supplied information, relative to question 2 of your request, retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I hope that this is of help to you and note that it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

 

 

Reference: 9838-18
Date: 27/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 27th June 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on 28th June 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.  Please note we have been advised that we are unable to provide data as FTE

This request concerns times taken off by police officers at your force due to mental health-related illnesses.
1.    Please state the total number of calendar days (FTE) taken off by police officer due to stress or anxiety, in each of the following financial years: 2014/2015/2016/2017
Calendar Days  No(s) of Officers
2014/15  13378   109
2015/16  14001   110
2016/17  19910   142
2017/18  20337   160
2.    Please state the proportion of total sickness absences taken off by police officers which were due to stress or anxiety, in each of the following financial years
Percentage
2014/15 – 10.77%  
2015/16 – 12.63%
2016/17 – 15.37%
2017/18 – 17.51%
 
3.    Please state the number of police officers who took long-term sick leave, defined as being on leave for 28 or more calendar days (i.e., 4 working weeks) due to stress or anxiety, in each of the following financial years
2014/15 – 87 
2015/16 – 90 
2016/17 – 110 
2017/18 – 126 

Reference: 9837-18
Date: 26/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 27th June.  I note you seek the following:

The total value of assets seized from criminals by the force in the last financial year (2017-2018).
a) Confiscation Orders
2017-18 43  £195,475.15

Please also provide the total value of assets seized from criminals by the force in each of the four preceding financial years.
a)  Confiscation Orders
2014-15 62  £322,780.08
2015-16  82  £617,924.29
2016-17  61 £1,317,750.77

For each year, please provide a breakdown which shows the value of cash seizures, asset seizures and confiscations within this total.
a) Cash Forfeitures
2014-15  10 £90,535.75
2015-16  6  £67,196.12
2016-17  10 £253,060.74
2017-18  2  £7,410

Please can you also provide me full details of the force's largest five cash seizures and asset seizures in the past year, including the total value of the seizure, what was seized, and from whom it was seized.
Cash Forfeitures
Last 12 months,
1. £47,415
2. £16,951
3. £5,400
4. £2,860
5. £2,010
Confiscations
Last 12 months
1. £32,754.22
2. £25,000
3. £17,100
4. £10,250
5. 10,095

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve with regards to the unanswered questions we would rely on the following:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 40(5) Personal Information
This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist. 
Section 23 is an absolute class-based exemption and therefore there is no requirement to conduct a harm or public interest test
Section 40 is an absolute exemption, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.  In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.
On this occasion some of the information requested is personal information and disclosure would contravene the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 - fair and lawful processing , what are the likely expectations of the data subjects, in that would they expect the Cleveland Police to release their personal details to the world, since release of information under The Freedom of Information Act 2000, is release to the world at large and not just to the individual applicant and as such I believe to do so would amount to unfair processing and hence therefore is exempt under Sections 40(2)(a), 40(3)(a)(i), and 40(3)(b).

Reference: 9836-18
Date: 14/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 27th June.  Please accept our apologies for the late response.   I note you seek the following:

1. Every case that a police officer in your force was convicted of a criminal offence, including the date of the conviction, and what the officer was convicted of.
a)  1 Officer convicted of Drink Driving in August 2017.
2. For each case, please state whether you have exercised your powers of pension forfeiture under regulation K5 of the Police Pension Regulations 1987. And if so, please state how much of the pension was forfeited.
a) none

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9835-18
Date: 25/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 27th June.  I note you seek the following:

Please could you provide the number of people arrested under s144 LASPO (or offence code 125/86) since 2012, broken down by calendar year.

Apologies, the correct code is 125/96.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have we have no arrests under the Home Office code 125/96 in the time period specified.


 

Reference: 9834-18
Date: 23/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 25th June.  I note you seek the following information:

How many crime reports in the last 5 calendar years have been "screened out" or closed without investigation on the same day they were reported? Please can you break this down by year (2013,2014,2015,2016,2017 and as many months of 2018 as you have so far), and  say which category the crime report fell into:

vehicle offences
burglary
arson and criminal damage
theft
public order offence
robbery
violence against the person
misc crimes against society
possession of weapons
sexual offences
drug offences
other accepted crime

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.  The analyst whom provided the data has stated that the term screened out does not mean the crime has not been investigate it may have been investigated prior to adding it to the system and screened out at source.

Reference: 9832-18
Date: 23/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 25th June.  I note you seek the following:

1) How many arrests for child sex offences has your force made using, at least in part, evidence gathered by so-called paedophile hunter/vigilante groups?
2) How many individuals arrested for child sex offences are known to have taken their own lives following their arrest?
3) How many individuals arrested for child sex offences, following evidence gathered by so-called paedophile hunter/vigilante groups are known to have taken their own lives following their arrest?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that we do not record whether the arrest was reported via a Paedophile hunter/group and we would have to retrieve all arrests in relation to sex offences and read them manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken. Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act. 

With regards to Question 2 and 3 only a coroner can decide upon cause of death. The following link is published data giving the national statistics for the number of deaths and suicides following police contact and is broken down into offences. It states:
Apparent suicides following police custody are reported if they occur within two days of someone’s release from custody.  They are also reported if experiences in custody may have been relevant to the death, and the death has been referred to the IOPC. The police may not always be told about an apparent suicide that happens after detention in custody, as the association may not be clear. Therefore, there may be more deaths in these circumstances than are reported here. The term ‘suicide’ does not necessarily relate to a coroner’s verdict because, in most cases, verdicts are still pending.  In these instances, the case is only included if, after considering the nature of death, the circumstances suggest that death was an intentional, self-inflicted act – for example, a hanging, or where there was some evidence of ‘suicidal ideation’, such as a suicide note

https://policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/statistics/deaths_during_following_police_contact_201617.pdf

https://policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/statistics/deaths_during_following_police_contact_201617.pdf

Information held by the coroner is not covered by FOI and the information published at the links above may not be all the information held.
 

Reference: 9830-18
Date: 23/07/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in the office on 22nd June.  I note you seek the following:

1, Is there a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub within your force area ?
a)  We have a multi-agency children’s Hub in the North of the county encompassing Stockton and Hartlepool local authority areas but it doesn’t include adults.
2, Where there are multiple MASH arrangements within your force area does your organisation contribute to all MASHs ?
a)  Only one children’s HUB and we are fully engaged, we are fully supportive of the principle of MASH’s
3, Do health partners contribute to your MASH arrangements ?
a)  Health are fully engaged in the Children’s HUB
4, Where health partners do contribute is this
a) Community Health
b) Mental Health
a)  This is not our information you will need to contact the Health Authority
5) Is the contribution from health a virtual arrangement or are health personnel situated within the
MASH ?
a)  This again is for the Health Authority but we believe most if not all of the time they are physically located in the Children’s HUB.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve

Reference: 9829-18
Date: 23/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 21st June 2018 which was received in this office on 22nd June 2018.  I note you seek the following information:

1) What is the total number of complaints made by members of the public about your force? If your force categorises them then please provide a total and a breakdown by category.

2) If not covered in the answer to question one, how many complaints were made about the quality of investigations?

We have made enquiries with our Standards and Ethics Department and the attached excel document contains all of the information that they have been able to retrieve.
Please note the information contained in the attached document relates simply the initial categories for the complaint record and are no indication of the result following investigation.


 

Reference: 9828-18
Date: 27/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 21st June.  I note you seek the following:

• The name of the Force’s Gas & Electricity supplier
a)           Gas – Corona    Electricity  - N Power
• The name of the Force’s energy broker (if you have one)
 a)          Gas & Electricity – Nepo  
• Annual Gas & Electricity consumption of the Force (kWH separate figures)
a) Electric – kWh 7031243
               Gas – kWh 7294875     
• Amount of Gas & Electricity supplies (no. of sites supplied and the cost of consumption in £s)
a)           Electric – 19 sites, cost £772212
               Gas – 15 sites, cost £176605
• The renewal date of each energy contract
a)           Gas – 01/04/2020 – Electricity – 01/04/2019

Having made enquiries the information is above and is based on the financial year 2017-18.

Reference: 9827-18
Date: 13/08/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 21st June.  Please accept our apologies for the late response due to staffing issues.  I note you seek the following:

I’d like to make a request under the freedom of information act. It’s regarding crowd trouble at boxing matches.
Please indicate the number of times police were called to reports of violence in a crowd at a boxing match/fight night event.
Please give details of reasons for being called out. Was it crowd violence, drunk and disorderly, possessing drugs or offensive weapons?
Please indicate how many people arrested.
Please provide figures for calendar years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 so far.
I have included a table to make this easier for you.

Having made enquiries within the Force the Department dealing with this request carried out a key word search using “boxing” the results are below:

2013 – 125 records found none of which have been reported from a sporting venue
2014 - 164 records found none of which have been reported from a sporting venue
2015 – 143 records found none of which have been reported from a sporting venue
2016 - 174 records found none of which have been reported from a sporting venue
2017 - 144 records found none of which have been reported from a sporting venue
2018 - 85 records found none of which have been reported from a sporting venue

This is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  Once again please accept our apologies for the late response.

Reference: 9826-18
Date: 23/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 21st June.  I note you seek the following:

- The total number of children aged 16 and under arrested in connection with any sexual offence for the calendar years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 to date.

- A breakdown of the ages of alleged offenders and the offences for which they were arrested, e.g. three nine year olds arrested in connection with sexual assault, two ten year olds arrested in connection with rape, etc.

- The total number of children who were subsequently charged, broken down by calendar year.
- A breakdown of the ages of alleged offenders and the offences for which they were arrested, e.g. three nine year olds charged with sexual assault, two ten year olds charged with rape, etc.

- The age of the youngest person arrested in connection with a sexual offence over the period 2015 to 2018 as a whole and the offence for which they were arrested.

- The age of the youngest person charged with a sexual offence over the period 2015 to 2018 as a whole and the offence for which they were charged.

- The number of sexual offences recorded for each calendar year in which the location was given as a school and the perpetrator was alleged to be aged 16 or under.
a)  None.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.  We have provided the data in age bandings in a tabulated format as with the numbers being low if put with any other information you may hold will negate any possibility of identification.   As identification could lead to a breach of the one of the general principals of the Data Protection Act.

Reference: 9825-18
Date: 23/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on27th June.  I note you seek the following information:

1. Number of firearms incidents in the year 2016-2017 in which the firearm involved was classified Section 2 under the Firearms act.
2. Number of firearms incidents in the year 2016-2017 in which the firearm involved was classified Section 1 under the Firearms act.
3. Number of firearms incidents in the year 2016-2017 in which the firearm involved was classified Section 2 under the Firearms act and was legally possessed.
4. Number of firearms incidents in the year 2016-2017 in which the firearm involved was classified Section 1 under the Firearms act and was legally possessed

Having made enquiries within the Force for the time specified there has been one offence recorded as a Home Office offence code 81/17 Possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition which comes under Firearms Act 1968 Sec 5(1)  as amended by Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 Sec 157 Sch. 8 part III.                                                                     

Reference: 9824-18
Date: 19/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 21st June.  I note you seek the following:

1. The number of hate crimes recorded by your force, by local authority, district or community safety partnership, during the following financial years:

a) 2014/15
b) 2015/16
c) 2016/17
d) 2017/18

Having made enquiries within the Force we have included a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9823-18
Date: 19/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 20Th June.  I note you seek the following:

Could I please receive the following information for each of the years 2016, 2017 and
2018
1) The number of arrests involving the possession or use of the drug Fentanyl
2) The number of people who have tested positive for the drug Fentanyl in custody

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 30(3) Investigations;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;

Sections 23 is an absolute exemptions, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.  In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.

Section 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test. 

Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a public interest test.

Harm
The confirmation or denial that information is held relating to fentanyl would identify whether or not Cleveland Police has seen taken local level action regarding its distribution. The effects of fentanyl as a recreational drug is highly publicised, it is extremely potent and very dangerous. NCA have confirmed their involvement in assessing the drug through their website and to confirm or deny that Cleveland Police has had the drug would build a picture as to where national and local investigations and operations are taking place to combat the distribution of this drug. To confirm or deny that information is held would enable a mosaic picture to be realised as to which areas are affected and which areas are not. This will help those distributing the drug to identify vulnerable areas.  Furthermore, if distribution is taking place in areas where a force confirms it has not seized any fentanyl – this would suggest that the police are not aware of any local dealings. Those supplying fentanyl or drugs with fentanyl in will be aware that they are not on the local police radar. The distribution of drugs usually is not completed in isolation forms part of a wider organised crime network, which usually involves other serious crimes.

Confirming or denying that information is held by force location would undermine any local level operations or national operations which may be taking place to target the serious organised distribution and use of fentanyl or substances containing fentanyl.

Factors favouring confirming or denying that information is held S30
To confirm or deny that information is held would enable the local community to understand whether any investigations have or are taking place surrounding this particular drug. This would lead to an increase in understanding. It would also enable the public to understand whether resources are being allocated to combating the distribution of the drug locally.

Factors against confirming or denying that information is held S30
To confirm or deny that information is held would identify which force areas have located fentanyl locally and which have not. Fentanyl is a highly potent drug and being able to map where it is being distributed across the country would undermine the police services ability to appropriately investigate crimes associated with its use and distribution. The confirmation or denial that information is held would undermine local and national level operations which may be taking place and would mean that those distributing the drug will avoid prosecution which would have a negative impact on local communities.

Factors favouring confirming or denying that information is held S31
The confirmation or denial that information is held would lead to a greater informed public both nationally and locally. Dependant on whether information is held would identify whether there is a local/ national issue with fentanyl and how extensive that may or may not be. People can take steps to safeguard themselves from exposure to this drug, if they know that it has been located locally.

Factors against confirming or denying that information is held S31
To confirm or deny that information is held, would undermine any local or national level operations that may be or will be taking place in the future to combat this crime. Fentanyl is a highly potent drug and it is of paramount importance that the police service can investigate and disrupt the distribution of it throughout the country so that its severe impacts are not felt within our communities. To confirm or deny whether Cleveland Police force has seized fentanyl or substances containing fentanyl for drug use would not only affect local level policing decisions but could also have an impact nationally. This would mean that information is provided to those involved in its distribution and ultimately could mean that organised crime groups may adapt and change tact that would mean that the police service is placed at a disadvantage.

Balance Test
Although there is a public interest in knowing whether Cleveland Police has seized fentanyl as communities will be more aware and take steps to protect themselves. However, Cleveland Police Force would not want to undermine any local or national operations which may be taking place to combat the distribution of this drug. To confirm or deny that this information is held locally would not only provide local information that would undermine any local operations if on-going but also any national ones which may take place. The information would directly relate to intelligence and being able to map this across the country would be of use to criminal groups distributing this drug as it would give a picture as to which forces are aware whether it has fentanyl being distributed in its area. Furthermore, other agencies are involved in the disruption of the distribution of this drug and a disclosure by the police service may serve to undermine their operations should they have any on-going.
 

 

Reference: 9822-18
Date: 17/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 20th June.  I note you seek the following:

How many revenge porn offences were reported to police? Please could I get the figures for 2016, 2017 and 2018 (so far)?
How many were passed to prosecutors for further action?
Please can I get a breakdown of the age of the victims?

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve we do not hold information of how many have been passed to a prosecutor for further action but we have included the numbers that have been Charged/summonsed.

2015/16
Ages
16 & under – 8
17-20 – 5
21-30 – 12
31 - 40 – 1
41 - 50 – 3
50 & over - 1
Total = 30 - 3 Charged/summonsed

2016/17
Ages
16 & under – 7
17-20 – 10
21-30 – 25
31 - 40 – 10
41 - 50 – 1
50 & over - 1
Total      54 – 5 Charged/summonsed

2017/18
Ages
16 & under – 4
17-20 – 11
21-30 – 20
31 - 40 – 5
41 - 50 – 1
50 & over - 0
Total     41 – 3 Charged

Apr/May 2018
Ages
16 & under – 2
17-20 – 3
21-30 – 6
31 - 40 – 1
41 - 50 – 0
50 & over - 0
Total     12 – 2 Charged

Reference: 9822-18
Date: 17/07/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 19th June.  I note you seek the following:

 

Please release the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

•             How many arrests have there been at each of the hospitals in the Teesside area over the last year, in comparison to the previous year?

•             For each of the arrests, if any, what was the person arrested for?

I would like the information broken down by hospital. The hospitals are as follows:

 

University Hospital of Hartlepool

- University Hospital of North Tees

- James Cook University Hospital

- Friarage Hospital

- East Cleveland Primary Care Hospital

- Guisborough Primary Care Hospital

- Redcar Primary Care Hospital

- The Friary Community Hospital.

 

Having made enquiries within the Force there have been 9 arrests and below is all the information we have been able to retrieve:

 

JAMES COOK HOSPITAL, MIDDLESBROUGH

2

Section 18 - wounding with intent (recordable)

1

Threats to kill (recordable)

1

NORTH TEES HOSPITAL, STOCKTON ON TEES

7

Aggravated burglary - dwelling (recordable)

1

BREACH OF THE PEACE LIKELY - BIND OVER WITHOUT COMPLAINT

1

Burglary dwelling - with intent to steal (recordable)

2

Drunk and disorderly in a public place (recordable)

1

Possess with intent to supply a controlled drug of Class A - Other (recordable)

1

Section 18 - wounding with intent (recordable)

1

 

Reference: 9820-18
Date: 17/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 19th May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

Please could you provide details of the number of arrests made by your force where alcohol was listed as a factor for each of the last 5 calendar years (including the year to date).
If possible, could you also break this information down by:
-Offence type
-Offender’s gender
-Whether the offence took place between 8pm – 6am.
Following enquiries within the force Cleveland Police would rely upon the following;
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having made enquiries regarding your request we have been advised that within the timescale of your request there were a total of 16,367 alcohol related arrests (2018 – 1421, 2017– 2999, 2016 – 3507, 2015 – 3919, and 2014 – 4521 arrests) and the only way to provide the breakdown requested would be to manually retrieve read and collate the information from each single record.  It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.
We would normally advise how you could refine your request so that we could provide the data requested, however given the numbers for each year even one years’ worth of data would take in excess of the time limit to retrieve and collate. 

 

Reference: 9818-18
Date: 17/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th June 2018 which was received in this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you. 

I am requesting the following information under the freedom of information act: 
1. When did your force first issue Body Worn Video (BWV) cameras to frontline officers?
a) April 2015
2. How many BWV cameras are currently in use at your force and how much have you spent on these cameras since they were first issued?
a) The initial Spend was approximately £57,000 and we have spent around £32000 on the refresh/upgrade of cameras and then a further £78000 is in the process of being spent on new cameras for INT.
We have 100 cameras and following the purchase for INT the total will be 220 in total.
 
3. How many reports of domestic abuse related incidents has the force responded to since 2013?
We have made enquiries with our CSU PQR Performance Team and they have advised that they are unable to provide any data prior to 1st April 2014 as the criteria used to record such crimes changed after that date. All of the data we have been able to retrieve is contained in the attached XLS document.
4. How many convictions has your force secured for domestic abuse related offences since 2013?
We are unable to provide data to answer this request, the police arrest and charge an alleged perpetrator, the Crown Prosecution Service take the decision to prosecute and the HM Court convict and there data relative to the number of convictions for domestic abuse related offences would be held by them.
5. How many of these convictions involved a “victimless prosecution” ie the victim did not support court proceedings?
 Cleveland Police use an outcome closure code of ‘16 Victim declines to prosecute’, however that is not classed as a positive outcome therefore is not a conviction.
6. How many complaints has your force received regarding the conduct of an officer since 2013?
7. How many of the complaints were regarding the officers’ use of force, connected to a firearms incident or police use of Taser?
8. How many of these complaints resulted in misconduct proceedings and/or referral to IOPC/IPCC?
Please break the results down year-by-year
The below table provides all of the information we have been able to retrieve in relation to questions 6 – 8. 
Please note the 2018 data is up to the date of your request.
 

 

Number of Complaints Recorded

Complaints linked to Firearms Incident/Use of Taser

Misconduct Proceedings (Complaints linked to Firearms Incident/Use of Taser)

IOPC/IPPC Referral
(Complaints linked to Firearms Incident/Use of Taser)

2013

951

0

0

0

2014

696

1

0

0

2015

864

0

0

0

2016

638

0

0

0

2017

716

2

0

0

2018

440

0

0

0

 

 

Reference: 9816-18
Date: 17/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 17th June 2018 which was received in this office on 18th June 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you.  I must also draw your attention to the fact that the 999 abandoned figure is inflated due to the BT process. This process means that they re-present calls up to 3 times during busy periods.

1 - How many 999 calls have been abandoned in the past five years?
For clarity, I am looking for figures for each of the following:
- To date in 2018 – 589 (Jan-May)
- 2017 - 6910
- 2016 - 4283
- 2015 - 711
- 2014 – 396 (Apr 14-Dec 14 only)

 2 - How many 101 calls have been abandoned in the past five years?
For clarity, I am looking for figures for each of the following:
- To date in 2018 – 1652 (Jan-May)
- 2017 - 28858
- 2016 - 25093
- 2015 - 6311
- 2014 - 3898 (Apr 14-Dec 14 only)

 

Reference: 9815-18
Date: 17/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 18th June.  I note you seek the following:

1) What is the explanatory guidance that has been given to Cleveland police about what information to record in the 'gender' category of the ADR?

2) In the gender category of the ADR does your police force record a victim or suspects natal sex (the sex they were assigned at birth), their legal sex (the sex on their birth certificate), or their self-declared gender identity?

3) If a male-born person self-identifies as female will this be recorded by you in the ADR as female or male?

4) If a male-born person self-identifies as non-binary will this be recorded by you in the ADR as female or male or something else?

5) If someone is transgender (identifies as a different gender to the sex assigned at birth) is this recorded by you separately in the ADR.

6) If a male-born person self-identifies as female and is arrested/convicted for the crime of rape will you record the gender of the suspect/perpetrator in the ADR as male or female.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Cleveland Police when refusing such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you  the applicant with a notice which (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption and (c) states (if it would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption(s) applies.

Notice of Non-Disclosure:
I am not disclosing the above requested information pursuant to the exemption provisions of Section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section 21 of the Act (Information Reasonably Accessible by Other Means) states that information is exempt information if it is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Section 21 is an absolute exemption and where information falls within the scope of an absolute exemption, a public authority is not obliged to communicate it to an applicant and is also not obliged to comply with the duty to confirm or deny the existence of the information requested.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request.

Having made enquiries within the Force not all the data on the ADR’s will contain or requires gender information.  For those that do we adhere to the College of Policing see below link this includes reference to recording gender of individuals in custody we have also attached a link to the Home Office document of a similar nature

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/detention-and-custody-2/detainee-care/equality-and-individual-needs/#trans-individual-detainees

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364707/PaceCodeC2014.pdf

 

Reference: 9814-18
Date: 16/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 15th June.  I note you seek the following:

Between April 2016 and March 2017 75,115 vehicles in the U.K failed initially due to a defect within the number plate or VIN number.
a)  Keep a vehicle when registration mark fails to conform with the regulations - 3

Drive a vehicle when the registration mark fails to conform with regulations - 18

I would like to know how many vehicle owners were fined/reported between the same time frame (vehicles including all classes 1-7) for displaying illegal number plates.
a)  None

Having made enquiries within the Force all the information we have been able to retrieve is above.

Reference: 9813-18
Date: 16/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 14th June 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on 15th June 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information that we have been able to obtain/retrieve for you.

1. In each of the last three financial years (15/16), (16/17) and (17/18) please state how many police officers within your force faced disciplinary action as a result of having committed sexual harassment of a work colleague or a member of the public. Please do NOT include officers who may have faced disciplinary action but then received no sanction as the allegation was not proved.
2. For each year please state how many of the alleged victims were against (i) work colleagues and (ii) members of the public?
3. For the most recent five cases to be dealt with please state (i) a brief narrative of what the harassment was (touching, talking, lewd behaviour etc), (ii) whether the victim was a colleague or a member of the public and (iii) the sanction received by the officer.
a) We have made enquiries with our Standards and Ethics Department and have been advised that there are no records of any officers receiving a disciplinary sanction in relation to ‘Sexual Harassment’ against a work colleague or a member of the public so our response, on this occasion, must be no information held.

Reference: 9821-18
Date: 11/07/2018 I write in connection with you request for information received in this office on 14th June.  I note you seek the following:

1. In relation to the 15th September 2017 to the 14th October 2017 please state how many crimes were logged by your force where university was recorded as being mentioned in the offence? [Note: I would hope that this could be achieved by a computer search on the MO of crimes for the words "university”.
2. Please provide me with a table showing a breakdown of the crimes from Q.1 that are `linked’ to “university” by its mention in the MO?
3. Taking the month of October 2017 please provide me with copies of the first 7 MOs that mention university. [Note: To avoid falling into an exemption I am content for names, ages, geography or any other personal detail to be redacted].

Having made enquiries within the Force there have been 5 crimes mentioning university below are copies of the MO.

DURING DAY LIGHT HOURS AN UNKNOWN PERSON HAS ENTERED THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND STOLEN A MOBILE PHONE. THE PHONE WAS ON THE TABLE NEXT TO THE IP WHLE SHE WAS WORKING. SHE DID NOT LEAVE THE SEAT AT ALL TIMES. SHE WAS SAT ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE LIBRARY. WHEN SHE TURNED TO GET HER PHONE IT WAS GONE

FEMALE VICTIM IS SAT ON A BENCH AT THE UNIVERSITY, SHE IS APPROACHED BY A MALE WHO GRABS HER HANDBAG, WHICH WAS BESIDE HER AND RIDES OFF. VICTIM AND OTHER GIVE CHASE BUT LOSE THE MALE. HANDBAG FOUND DUMPED AND CASH MISSING. NO THREATS OR FORCE USED.

DURING DAYTIME HOURS UNKNOWN MALE SUSPECT WALKS INTO A CAFÉ AREA WITH THE UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS; WHILST IN THE PUBLIC AREA OF THE CAFÉ THE SUSPECT GOES BEHIND THE CAFÉ COUNTER, A NON PUBLIC AREA, AS A TRESPASSER AND ATTEMPTS TO GAIN ACCESS TO A NUMBER OF LOCKED CUPBOARDS BEHIND THE COUNTER; THE SUSPECT FAILS TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE CUPBOARDS AND LEAVES THE CAFÉ.

VICTIM HAS BEEN INSIDE THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY WHEN SHE HAS LEFT HER MACBOOK ON THE SIDE UNDER HER BAG, THE VICTIM HAS THEN LEFT THE MACBOOK UNATTENDED FOR A SMALL PERIOD OF TIME AND RETURNED TO FIND UNKNOWN PERSON(S) HAVE REMOVED THE MACBOOK AND LEFT THE LIBRARY CONCEALING IT OUT OF VIEW AND MAKING OFF.

DURING HOURS OF DARKNESS FEMALE VICTIM IS STUDYING IN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY HAVING LEFT HER PEDAL BIKE SECURED OUTSIDE. ON RETURNING THE BIKE WAS GONE AND THE SECURITY CHAIN LEFT.

Reference: 9811-18
Date: 11/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 13th June.  I note you seek the following:

1. How many incidents in relation to the offences listed below were recorded by your force where some or all of the evidence was supplied by so-called Paedophile Hunters?
2. How many of those incidents were subsequently acted on and recorded as a crime and how many resulted in a perseon being prosecuted.
3. How many of those acted upon led to convictions?

Offences in relation to:
· 18 or over attempt to cause / incite a girl 13 to 15 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration
· Attempt to cause / incite a boy 13 to 15 to engage in sexual activity - offender 18 or over -penetration
· Attempt to cause / incite a boy aged 13 to 15 to engage in a penetrative sexual activity - offender aged under 18
· Attempt to cause / incite a boy under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration
· Attempt to cause / incite a female child aged under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration
· Attempt to cause / incite a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity - offender 18 or over - penetration
· Attempt to cause / incite a girl 13 to 15 to engage in sexual activity - offender 18 or over - penetration
· Attempt to cause / incite a girl aged 13 to 15 to engage in a penetrative sexual activity - offender aged under 18
· Offender 18 or over attempt to cause / incite a boy under 13 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration
· Offender under 18 attempt to cause / incite a girl 13 to 15 to engage in sexual activity - no penetration
· Cause a child aged 13 to 15 to watch / look at an image of sexual activity – offender 18 or over
· Offender 18 or over attempt to cause a child aged 13 to 15 to watch / look at an image of sexual activity
· Offender 18 or over cause a child under 13 to watch / look at an image of sexual activity
· Adult attempt to meet a boy under 16 years of age following grooming
· Adult attempt to meet a girl under 16 years of age following grooming

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that we do not record whether the crime was reported via a Paedophile hunter/group and we would have to retrieve all the crimes for the above offences and time specified and read them manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken. Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act. 
 

Reference: 9810-18
Date: 11/07/2018 I write in connection regarding your request for information received in this office on 13th June.  I note you seek the following:

• How many children (under 18) were taken into police custody during the night (i.e. any time between 11pm- 5am)?
a)
2013-14 – 419
2014-15 – 315
2015-16 – 241
2016-17 – 238
2017-18 – 186

• What is the youngest age of a child taken into police custody at any time between 11pm-5am (and what offence had been committed)?
a)
2013-14- 13 years (X5) arrested for:
· Arrest by a constable for breaking / likely to break bail conditions - duty to surrender into the custody of a court
· Burglary dwelling and theft - no violence (recordable)
· Criminal damage to property valued under £5000 (recordable) (X2)
· Rape a girl under 13 (recordable)

2014-15- 11 years (x2) arrested for:
· Bind over - commit breach of the peace
· Criminal damage to property valued under £5000 (recordable)

2015-16- 11 years (x1) arrested for:
· Bind over - commit breach of the peace

2016-17- 11 years (x1) arrested for:
· ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM

2017-18- 11 years (x1) arrested for:
· Use threatening / abusive words / behaviour or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (recordable)

• What is the highest number of occasions the same child has been taken into police custody at any time between 11pm – 5am?
a)
2013-14 – 7
2014-15 – 5
2015-16 – 6
2016-17 – 7
2017-18 – 6

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve. 

Reference: 9808-18
Date: 10/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 12th June.  I note you seek the following:

Please would you be able to provide me with the following information for your police area in 2016 and 2017 respectively?
· The number of drivers caught with an illegal number plate
a)  please see attached spread sheet with the numbers. The officer can either issue a VDRS whereby the offender has 14 days to rectify the problem - if they comply then no further action is taken; if they do not then they face prosecution – or they can issue a non-endorsable fixed penalty notice of £100. The offender has 28 days to pay the fine otherwise the payment registers as a fine with the local court and increases by 50%.
· Statistics for why these drivers’ plates didn’t meet legal requirements
a)  this information is not recorded on the ticket.
· Statistics of the punishments/fines that were imposed upon these drivers
a)  included in the spread sheet attached.   We cannot give information regarding those dealt with at the magistrates by way of prosecution.

If there’s any additional information to the above that you think would also be relevant, I’d be very grateful to see that too.

Having made enquiries within the Force this offence is dealt with in Central Ticket Office as “Drive a vehicle when the registration marks fail to conform with the regulations”.    Please see attached document.

Reference: 9807-18
Date: 10/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 12th June.  I note you seek the following:

1. How many child on child sexual assaults have been recorded by Cleveland Police between 2015 to date? Please provide a breakdown by each year, by gender and in the following age ranges: Under 10, 10-14-years-old, 15-18-years-old.

2. How many of the recorded sexual assaults have been female on male? (Please provide in a yearly and age range breakdown)

3. How many of the recorded sexual assaults have been female on female? (Please provide in a yearly and age range breakdown)

4. How many of the recorded sexual assaults have been male on male?  (Please provide in a yearly and age range breakdown)

5. How many of the recorded sexual assaults have been male on female? (Please provide in a yearly and age range breakdown)

6. How many of these recorded sexual assaults have resulted in a prosecution? (Please provide a yearly breakdown)

7. How many of these recorded sexual assailants took place on school grounds? (Please provide a yearly and age range breakdown)

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

I have made enquiries with our performance analysts and have been advised that owing to data quality issues with dates of birth of victims, to provide you with an answer to this request we would have to check all the sexual assaults to ensure both the victim and suspect were under the age of 18. All sexual assault files would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request therefore it is estimated that to provide an answer for a single year alone would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.

Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.   However if you wish to refine your request to a smaller time period and what you constitute as Sexual assault  (we record crime using the Home office counting rules) see attached link if you provide the home office codes to which offences you require the information from we will endeavour to provide and response, with regards to Prosecutions it the duty  of Cleveland Police to identify, apprehend suspects, decisions regarding prosecutions is the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service and Convictions is that of HM Courts Service therefore Conviction data is held by HM Courts.   

Counting rules notifiable offences and notifiable reported incidents list 2018-2019  
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/counting-rules-for-recorded-crime
   

Reference: 9806-18
Date: 06/07/2018 I write in connection with your request dated 11th June 2018 which was received in this office on that date.  I note you seek access to the below information.

I would like to request the following information under the Freedom of Information act:

1) The number of burglaries and/or attempted burglaries recorded in your authority area, broken down by month for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 to date.
2) The number of car thefts and/or attempted car thefts recorded in your authority area, broken down by month for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 to date.
3) The total value (£) of goods stolen in house burglaries, for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 to date.
4) The total value (£) of cars or goods stolen in car thefts, for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 to date.
If limited by time constraints, please prioritise in order of Q1, Q2, Q3 etc.
a) We have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve in answer to your request.

Reference: 9805-18
Date: 10/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 5th June 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information that we have been able to obtain/retrieve for you.

I would like to know please for each of the following years 2015/16; 2016/17 and 2017/18:
The number of murders
How many of those involved a bladed weapon
How many of those involved a firearm
The sanction-detection rate

Below is a breakdown of the numbers for each recorded crime
Recorded crimes of murder
2015/16 – 5 
2016/17 – 5 
2017/18 – 3 
Of which involved a bladed weapon
2015/16 – 2 
2016/17 – 0 
2017/18 – 1 
Of which involved a firearm
2015/16 – 1 
2016/17 – 0 
2017/18 – 0 
Sanction detection rate at end of each financial year
2015/16 – 20% 
2016/17 – 100%
2017/18 – 167%

PLEASE NOTE
We have given the sanction detection rate for murders at close of play that financial year.
By way of explanation in the financial year 2015/16 only one of the 5 murders was detected in that actual year so the detection rate goes down as 20% but in the financial year 2017/18 the sanction detection rate was 167%, as there were 3 murders recorded that year but 5 murders were detected that year (2 from previous financial year)

 

Reference: 9803-18
Date: 05/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 11th June.  I note you seek the following:

I would like to request the following information.

Please list the total number of crimes that were screened out and closed as they required ‘no further action’.
Please provide a breakdown by alleged crime and reason for closure.
Please provide historic data for 2017, 2016, 2015,2014, 2013 or however many years possible.

Please provide a breakdown by calendar year.

How many crimes were reported in total for each of those years?

2013/14 – 38983
2014/15 – 42048
2015/16 – 48157
2016/17 – 50924
2017/18 – 57241


Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve which is held in Financial Years.  Please note that screened out does not mean that the crime has not been investigated.

Reference: 9802-18
Date: 05/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 8th June.  I note you seek the following:

Could you share the following: -
The number of offences involving theft reported in total

 

HMIC Category

Total

Shoplifting

8513

All Other Theft Offences

6141

Vehicle Offences

4459

Burglary Residential

4320

Burglary Business and Community

1519

Bicycle Theft

922

Theft From The Person

506

Robbery

488

Misc Crimes Against Society (mainly handling / receiving stolen goods)

58

Grand Total

26926


The number of those offences that involved the taking of computing and communications devices i.e. mobile and smartphones, tablets, laptops, desktop computers, computing equipment
a)  2115
How many of the reported takings of computing and communications devices were from private individuals
a)  1559
How many of the reported takings of computing and communications devices were from businesses or other organisations (e.g. local Government, health services, etc.)
a)  556
The number of those reported offences committed by individuals riding on a vehicle i.e a moped, bicycle or motorbike. For example, in the case of the London paramedic mugged by moped thieves
a)  88 this is based on the search parameters used , no mopeds/motorcycles were linked to suspect using them in crime.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9799-18
Date: 05/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 7th June.  I note you seek the following:

1. How many Community Protection notices have your force handed out across the following calendar years: 2016, 2017 and 2018 (so far)?
By calendar year, I refer to the year running January-December.
Please break this information down by year.
 
2. For the years 2017 and 2018, I would be grateful if you could provide a full breakdown of reasons why these notices were given – in as much detail as you are able to share. Again, please break down by year.

Having made enquiries within the Force this is not out information it is dealt with by Local Councils therefore you will need to contact them.  Below are the postal addresses of the Local Authorities in our area.

Hartlepool Borough Council
Civic Centre
Victoria Road
Hartlepool TS24 8AY
Tel: 01429 266522

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
Municipal Buildings
Church Road
Stockton-on-Tees
Ts18 1LD
Tel: 01642 393939

Middlesbrough Borough Council
PO Box 500
Middlesbrough
TS1 9FT
Tel: 01642 245432

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council
Redcar & Cleveland House
Kirkleatham Street
Redcar
TS10 1RT
Tel: 01642 774774

Reference: 9798-18
Date: 12/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 7th June.  Please accept out apologies for the late response due to staffing issues.  I note you seek the following:

1) A monthly total of how many speeding fines were issued by speed cameras in your constabulary in 2016, 2017 and January - May 2018.
a)  See attached document

2) A monthly total of how much money was collected from speeding fines in your constabulary in 2016, 2017 and January - May 2018.
a)  Fines issued by CTO for a speeding offence are £100. I cannot provide details for those dealt with by prosecution as the penalty is decided by the Courts therefore this is there information.

3) The ten most active speed cameras in your constabulary in 2016, 2017 and January - May 2018, detailing how many speeding offences they each recorded and how much money they each collected in speeding fines.
a)  See attached document the numbers included are the number of offences processed by CTO (Central ticket office) from each camera location- this does not include any NFA’s/voids.

4) The highest recorded speeding offences (miles per hour) in your constabulary in 2016, 2017 and January - May 2018, detailing which speed cameras recorded these offences.
a)
2016 – 85mph on Queen Elizabeth Way, Stockton
2017 – 97mph on A177 (W) Thorpe Thewles, Stockton
Jan-May 2018 – 77mph on Queen Elizabeth Way, Stockton

5) How many Band A, Band B and Band C speeding offences were committed in your constabulary between May 2017 - May 2018.
a)  We are not aware of any bands for speeding offences.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve, with regards to question five we would require clarification to answer this.

Reference: 9797-18
Date: 05/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 7th June 2018 which was received in this office on that date.  I note you seek the following information:

Under the Freedom of Information Act, please could I request the following?

- How many attacks on police officers have there been?

- If possible, could I get details of the attack (if that isn't available, don't worry) -

Please could I get a breakdown for the figures, separately, for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 (so far)?

We have made enquiries with the Operational Planning and Safety Officer and they have provided the following in answer to your request.

   2015 2016 2017 2018 (to date of request)
Abrasion  2 6 16 1
Bite   8 9 6 1
Broken tooth  2 0 0 0 
Bruising   20 6 8 4
Concussion  1 1 0 0 
Discomfort  16 7 8 0
Eye Irritation  3 0 0 0 
Fracture  2 1 0 1
Laceration  9 3 1 3
Ligament Damage 1 0 0 0  
Puncture Wound 0 0 1 0
Scratch    2 2 0 0 
Strain   3 2 1 0
Stress   0 0 0 1
Swelling  5 7 5 3
Whiplash  0 3 0 0
TOTAL   74 47 46 14  181

Reference: 9796-18
Date: 05/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 7th June.  I note you seek the following:

Please could you provide me via email with information on the following areas:
 
- Do you have a protocol regarding support for survivors following rescue?
- If so, can you provide me with a brief overview of what this entails?
- If there is no protocol, are the survivors referred to third-party support agencies: could you provide specific organisations?

Having made enquiries within the Force, Cleveland Police is committed to tackling modern slavery and human trafficking, and to provide help and assistance to survivors of these offences. We work closely with partner agencies such as local authorities, the Salvation Army, the British Red Cross and the Soroptimists to ensure survivors are provided with the appropriate care and assistance. A dedicated VEMT (Vulnerable, Exploited, Missing and Trafficked) team exist within Cleveland Police, containing specialist officers trained to deal with modern slavery and human trafficking. Where appropriate survivors are provided with personal provisions and entered into the NRM (National Referral Mechanism) process where the Salvation Army assist with current and on-going welfare needs. Together with partner agencies Cleveland Police have established an Anti-Slavery Network within the Force area, with one of the aims of the network being to develop an agreed pathway for survivors.

Reference: 9795-18
Date: 05/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 7th June.  I note you seek the following:

I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information from Police Force:
1 - The number of crimes of fraud committed in your constabulary for each year from 2003 up to the most recent set of data.
2 - Whether these instances of fraud were in person or via the internet for each year.
3 -  The ages of the victims in both instances.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have supplied a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve the analyst providing the data has stated that they have used the code ‘53’ HO codes for Fraud & Forgery as CR7 means nothing to the search we use OR NFIB codes from 2013/14, as the 53 codes became obsolete. Please note however that we only record NFIB codes which are reported to us – to get the full figures of these crimes you would have to contact NFIB directly. Therefore there are a lot less crimes in years 13/14 onwards, as this is only a fraction.  We can only provide an age of the person is the information is correct on the crime report namely a valid date of birth we can only provide data from 2006 as this is when we hold the data from.  The cyber qualifier only came into being in the year 2014/15 onwards and this is used if the crime was committed in person or via the internet.

Reference: 9794-18
Date: 03/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on the 6th June.  I note you seek the following:

1) Please can you tell me the number of reported hate crimes against Gypsy, Roma, Traveller (GRT) people in the calendar years:
a. 2014
b. 2015
c. 2016
d. 2017

2) Could you break down the answers given in Q1a-d by the type of crime that was reported eg violence against the person, public order offences, property damage etc

3) Can you tell me how many arrests have been made for hate crimes being committed against Gypsy, Roma, Traveller people for the years:
a. 2014
b. 2015
c. 2016
d. 2017

4) Could you break down the answers given in Q3a-d by the type of crime that the person was arrested for eg violence against the person, public order offences, property damage etc

5) Can you tell me how many people were charged for hate crimes being committed against Gypsy, Roma, Traveller people for the years:
a. 2014
b. 2015
c. 2016
d. 2017

6) Could you break down the answers given in Q5a-d by the type of crime that the person was charged for eg violence against the person, public order offences, property damage etc

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised we do not have a category for (GRT) and each hate crime would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and for one year alone that is over 1000 and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.
 

Reference: 9792-18
Date: 04/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 6th June.  I note you seek the following:

1.    What byelaws, public order offences exist or any other relevant types of offence exist in your force area concerning public urination?
2.    How many offenders against these offences have been subject to a fine on summary conviction in your force area in the following calendar years:
A.    2010
B.    2011
C.    2012
D.   2013
E.    2014
F.    2015
G.   2016
H.    2017
3.    What is the value of the fine issued to offenders your council area?

Please provide the information in electronic format and, for question 2, in an Excel spreadsheet if possible.

Having made enquiries within the Force and Bye laws are the responsibility of the Local Councils see below addresses and public urination is a summary offence and does not show as a PND (penalty notice for disorder) on the PNLD (Police National Legal Database).  Therefore the answer to your question is no information is held as Cleveland Police have not issued any ticket for this offence in the time period specified.

Hartlepool Borough Council
Civic Centre
Victoria Road
Hartlepool TS24 8AY
Tel: 01429 266522

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
Municipal Buildings
Church Road
Stockton-on-Tees
Ts18 1LD
Tel: 01642 393939

Middlesbrough Borough Council
PO Box 500
Middlesbrough
TS1 9FT
Tel: 01642 245432

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council
Redcar & Cleveland House
Kirkleatham Street
Redcar
TS10 1RT
Tel: 01642 774774

Reference: 9791-18
Date: 12/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 5th June.  Please accept our apologies for the late response.  I note you seek the following:

1. The cost of running the firearms licensing department in each of the years ending March
2018, March 2017 and March 2016.
a)
15/16 - £66,509
16/17 - £71,213
17/18 - £97,035

2. The average number of Full Time Equivalent staff employed in each of those years. Please note that a breakdown by grade, job title or between full and part time staff is not being sought.
a)
15/16 – 2.31
16/17 – 2.37
17/18 – 3.31

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9790-18
Date: 03/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 5th June 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information that we have been able to obtain/retrieve for you.

The number of rapes reported to your police force where the victim was male.
The age range of the male victim.
I would like data for the above for the past three years, starting from 2017/18 if possible.
If this is not possible, please start the three tear time frame from 2016/17.

We have made enquiries regarding your request and the analysts has provide us with the information in the attached document however we must  advise you that this information comes with a warning that in relation to the age of the victim it is not always reliable or accurate for the following reasons. 

The age of the victim is worked out from the earliest date of the offence, so if the offence occurred between 2000 and 2010 and the victim was born in 1990, the victim’s age would be down as 10. However the actual offence may not have occurred until 2003 so the victim would actually have been 13, so it’s a very grey area).
The victim’s date of birth is sometimes recorded incorrectly or missed off altogether so we have a section of ‘unknown’.
Sometimes offences of rape and other sexual offences are reported at the same time, so the more serious crime of rape is recorded e.g. over a 10 year period the offences may have started out as sexual assault with the rape occurring at a later date, so the victim would actually be older at the time of the rape than when the first sexual assault took place.

This explanation may account for the high number of victims under the age of 10.


 

Reference: 9789-18
Date: 03/07/2018 I write in response to your request for information received in this office on 4th June.  I note you seek the following:

For each of the individual calendar years:
2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 to date.
1) How many alleged crimes did your Controlled Drug Liaison Officer(s) (CDLO(s)) investigate in each individual year requested?

2) How many of these investigations related to lost or stolen controlled drugs?

In reference to question one I seek information where an investigation was given a unique crime reference number.
In reference to question one and two I seek information in relation to the work of the CDLO(s) under the following pieces of legislation:
• The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
• The Health Act 2006
• The Controlled Drugs (Supervision of Management and Use) Regulations 2006. 
• The Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973. 
• Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.  
• The Medicines Act 1968.
• The misappropriation of controlled drugs investigated under the Theft Act 1968

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that we do not keep records of “alleged” crimes.  Your request would require retrieving and reading manually each crime from 2013 that contained the words “drug” or “chemist” to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.   However at this time we would advise you how to refine your request but we have been advised that currently due to staff changes and new processes being implemented we may be able to provide some answers to question 1 and 2 at a future date.

 

Reference: 9788-18
Date: 02/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 4th June 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information that we have been able to obtain/retrieve for you.

I would like to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
1. For all crimes reported in the calendar year 2018 whose outcomes you have classed as 'investigation complete; no suspect identified', please provide the date on which the investigation started and the date on which it was classed as ’investigation complete; no suspect identified'.

If the investigation was started and concluded on the same day, if possible please state in addition the number of man-hours spent working on the case.

2. Please break this data down by these crime types and if possible the community safety partnership or local authority in which the crime took place:
• Bicycle theft
• Burglary
• Criminal damage and arson
• Drugs
• Other crime
• Other theft
• Possession of weapons
• Public order
• Robbery
• Shoplifting
• Theft from the person
• Vehicle crime
• Violence and sexual offences
In other words the table would look something like this:

Crime type / Start date / End date / Local Authority
Burglary / 01/01/2018 / 03/01/2018 / Manchester
Robbery / 01/01/2018 / 02/01/2018 / Oldham

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

We have made enquiries within the force regarding your request we have been advised that the date that the offence was classed as ’investigation complete; no suspect identified' is not recorded on the data base that analysts access and to provide such data would require the manual reading an retrieval of each crime report so as to ascertain in the data is recorded.  It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
As a gesture of goodwill, outside of the Freedom of information Act, we have attached a document that contains all of the information the analysts have been able to retrieve, relative to your request, retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I hope that this is of help to you and note that it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

Notes
The below relate to the four districts within the Cleveland Police force area.
H DISTRICT = Hartlepool
M DISTRICT = Middlesbrough
S DISTRICT = Stockton-on-Tees
RC DISTRICT = Redcar & Cleveland

 

Reference: 9787-18
Date: 12/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 4th June.  I note you seek the following:

Privacy International requests the following records under section 1 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights4:
1. Recorded information in the last five years relating to your authority’s acquisition of hardware and/or software to facilitate hacking including, but not limited to:
a. Contracts, purchase orders, lease agreements, invoices and/or receipts with entities5 supplying such hardware and/or software;
b. Arrangements to borrow or use such hardware and/or software possessed by another entity, including for trial, pilot and/or demonstration periods;
c. Requests by entities to keep confidential any aspect of your authority’s acquisition and/or use of such hardware and/or software, including any nondisclosure agreements between your authority and such entities;
d. Correspondence with entities supplying such hardware and/or software;
e. Deployment and/or training materials;
f. Marketing and/or promotional materials.
2. Recorded information in the last five years relating to your authority’s purchase of services from an entity to facilitate hacking including, but not limited to:
a. Contracts, purchase orders, invoices and/or receipts with entities providing such services;
b. Arrangements for an entity to trial, pilot, and/or demonstrate such services;
c. Requests by entities to keep confidential any aspect of your authority’s purchase of such services, including any non-disclosure agreements between your authority and such entities;
d. Correspondence with entities providing such services;
e. Deployment and/or training materials;
f. Marketing and/or promotional materials.

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(2) National Security;
Section 30(3) Investigations;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;
 
Sections 24, and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test. 
Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a public interest test.

Overall harm
Any disclosure under FOIA is a disclosure to the world at large, and confirming or denying the use of specialist techniques which may or may not exist, and which (should they exist) the police service may or may not deploy in specific circumstances would prejudice law enforcement. If the requested information was held by the force, confirmation of this fact would reveal that the police have access to sophisticated communications analysis techniques. This would be damaging as it would (i) limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists would gain a greater understanding of the police's methods and techniques, enabling them to take steps to counter them; and (ii) provide an indication to any individual who may be undertaking criminal/terrorist activities that the police service may be aware of their presence and taking counter terrorist measures.  Conversely, if information was not held by the force, and a denial was issued, this would reveal to those same individuals that their activities are unlikely to have been detected by the police. It may also suggest (whether correctly or not) the limitations of police capabilities in this area, which may further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by exposing a potential vulnerability.  Disclosure of the information could confirm to those involved in criminality or terrorism that they are or have been the subject of such activity, allowing them to gauge the frequency of its use and to take measures to circumvent its use. Any compromise of, or reduction in such techniques by forces would substantially prejudice the ability of forces to police such events.  This detrimental effect is increased if the request is made to several different law enforcement bodies. In addition to the local criminal fraternity now being better informed, those intent on organised crime throughout the UK will be able to ‘map’ where the use of certain tactics are or are not deployed.  This can be useful information to those committing crimes of drugs and terrorist activities.  For example, to state that no information is held in one area and then exempt information held in another, would itself provide acknowledgement that the technique has been used at that second location. This could have the likelihood of identifying location-specific operations, enabling individuals to become aware of whether their activities have been detected. This in turn could lead to them moving their operations, destroying evidence, or avoiding those areas, ultimately compromising police tactics, operations and future prosecutions.  Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.

Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 24
The public is entitled to know where their public funds are being spent and a better informed public can take steps to protect themselves. 

Factors against confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 24
By confirming or denying the use of specialist techniques could render Security measures less effective. This could lead to the compromise of on-going or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public

Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 30
The public are entitled to know what their public funds are spent on. Investigations may be closed and any proceedings may have been completed, and the investigations may have been high profile and had national implications.

Factors against confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 30
The Force’s future law enforcement capabilities would be affected and this would hinder the prevention and detection of crime.

Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 31
Better awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public, and the public would be able to take steps to protect themselves. Some information is already in the public domain.

Factors against confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 31
Law enforcement tactics would be compromised which would hinder the prevention or detection of crime if the level of use of such tactics were openly discussed. This would impact on police resources, more crime would then be committed and individuals placed at risk.

Balance test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so could undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of national security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.  Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any other information is held regarding this technique is not made out. This argument is obviously transferable to all police tactics.
None of the above can be viewed as an inference that the information you seek does or does not exist.

Reference: 9786 -18
Date: 02/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 4th June.  I note you seek the following:

1. How many murders have there been each year, since 1970?
2. How many unsolved murders do you have on your records (dating back as far as possible)?
3. In regards to the unsolved homicides, please could you provide:
1. Their name,
2. Age,
3. Gender,
4. Ethnicity
5. Address/postcode,
6. Occupation (if known)
7. Date of incident,
8. Cause of death,
9. Reason why it has gone unsolved,
10. Whether anyone was tried for the incident but acquitted/found not guilty
11. How long the case has been cold for? (I.e. when was it passed to the major review team?)
4. Do you have a major crime review team, or a specific cold-case investigation team?
5. How many staff are on these teams/units?
6. What is your policy in relation to reviewing unsolved murders?

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  Since 1996 there have been 122 recorded murders in the Cleveland area.  Below are the unsolved murders we have on record.  All cases are deemed live until resolved and they are periodically reviewed by a designated team of investigators.  Cleveland Police in collaboration with North Yorkshire Police have a dedicated cold case team which comprises of 8 members of staff.  For the unanswered questions we would rely on the following:

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 30(3) Investigations;
 
Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a public interest test.

Public Interest test - Considerations favouring disclosure.

Accountability: Disclosure could provide the investigating officers with additional information.
Public awareness: Disclosure of the information in relation to an on-going investigation may enhance the ability and professionalism of the force and individual officers.

Considerations favouring -Non disclosure.
Exemption provisions
Public safety: By the inappropriate release of information, which could undermine an on-going investigations.

Balancing Test: whilst the public interest considerations favouring disclosure are noted in considering the arguments for and against release of the information requested, the balance in the public interest favours non-disclosure. Disclosure, at this moment in time other law enforcement may either be compromised or significantly weaken any on-going investigations and any future investigations.

16/11/1951 Edwin YOULL
Mr YOULL was found dead at the entrance to Newham Grange Farm on Ladgate Lane, Middlesbrough.
The body had been dragged some 47ft from the carriageway and the incident was initially dealt with as a road traffic accident.
After full examination of the body at MGH the cause of death was detailed as being due to severe haemorrhaging caused by a fractured skull. The deceased had a small puncture wound to the back of the neck, which was later established as a bullet hole and a .22 bullet was found wedged inside the jaw bone.
1 Suspect, who was interviewed a number of times, gave an alibi which was confirmed by others including his girlfriend.

05/09/1958 Laurence GRIBBON.
Mr GRIBBON was found dead in rear room of his carpet shop located on Newport Road, Middlesbrough. He had four (4) stab wounds to the back, caused with such force as to penetrate the vertebrae. Weapon believed to be Stiletto type knife with a blade at least five and a half inches long.

22/09/1963 Linda COOK.
Linda COOK was found on wasteland near to railway lines in Redcar near to Green Lane. Believed she had been dumped from a car (possibly a Cortina), on the evening of 21/09/1963. Death was due to asphyxia from strangulation and choking.
As a result of enquiries a number of males who drove similar cars were interviewed.

31/07/1969 Jean PALAM,
Jean PALAM was found in a recessed alleyway between Fleetham Street and Church Street, Middlesbrough.  She was unconscious and had received severe head injuries from with being hit with a house brick numerous times. She had a fractured skull and broken jaw.  PALAM remained unconscious for 14 days. Due to her condition she was transferred to St. Luke’s hospital where she remained until her death, on 8th May 1983. Police never interviewed PALAM as it was stated she had never been sufficiently coherent since the attack.

27/02/1988 Kate SIMPSON
Kate SIMPSON (94 years) was found dead at her home address in Stockton having been stabbed. A number of persons were interviewed re the incident.  3 males were given life sentences for the murder but were acquitted by the appeal court in 1992.

16/09/1989 Trevor Roy Metcalfe
The body of Trevor Metcalfe was found on Recreational Ground at Dormanstown, adjacent to the Middlesbrough/Redcar trunk road. A post mortem conducted revealed that he died as a result of blunt force trauma to the head which had been caused as a result of an assault. Numerous persons were interviewed, but no evidence to substantiate charges.

03/06/1989 Deceased: Tina Jane Bell - DOB: 05/10/1970
Tina Bell went missing on 3rd June 1989 from her home address in Billingham. On 20th April 1990 part of her skeletal remains (Skull) were found on waste ground in Billingham. A murder enquiry was launched but no offender has ever been charged with her murder.
 .

28/12/1990 Ivor HORTON
On the evening of 28/12/1990 Ivor HORTON of Middlesbrough was stabbed and beaten in Grantly Avenue junction with Rainsford Crescent. He later died of his injuries.  It is believed that the dispute following a burglary.
Four persons were charged with HORTON’S murder and all four appeared at T.C.C. on 17/01/1992 and were found not guilty, to lie on file.

27/06/2003 Darren Norman Manders
On 27th June 2003 a report was filed with Cleveland Police from Darren Manders mother. She recorded that the last contact that she had with him was on the telephone on 4th June 2003. Cleveland Police launched a missing from home investigation and on the 27th July 2003 the body of Mr Manders was located within woodland near Nunthorpe in Middlesbrough. A post mortem examination was carried out and the cause of death was identified as being blunt force trauma to the head. The last positive sighting of Mr Manders was on 5th June 2003. Numerous persons interviewed.

03/06/2006 Daniel Terrance Ransom
On Saturday 3rd June 2006 Police were called to a disturbance at the junction of Hamilton Road and Londonderry Road Stockton on Tees. On Police arrival there were approximately 20 – 30 people present in the street with a disturbance in progress. Mr Ransom was in the street and seen to be getting back to his feet from the ground. He was offered medical attention and advised to go to hospital (he refused). During the remainder of that day Ransom complained of headaches and was constantly being sick and his speech was slurred. Later that day he was taken to the Accident and Emergency Department where he was admitted into hospital. His condition deteriorated over the next few days and on Thursday 8th June 2006 he died in the intensive care unit. A post mortem examination identified cause of death as complications following blunt force trauma to the head. On Tuesday 18th March 2008 the coroner recorded a verdict of unlawful killing.  Numerous persons were interviewed.

Reference: 9785-18
Date: 02/07/2018 I write in response to your request for information received in this office on 4th June.  I note you seek the following:

The oldest [i.e. since purchased] police car used by your force.
a)  1995
The average age [i.e. since purchased] of the car fleet used by your force in each of the last three years.
a)   2018 – 3 years old
       2017 - 4 years old
       2016 – 5 years old  

The number of police cars aged [i.e. since purchased] a) 0-1 years, b) 1-2 years, c) 2-3 years, d) 3-4 years, e) 4-5 years, f) 5-10 years, g) 10 years plus, and all as a percentage of the total number of police cars.

a) 15.8%
b) 34.1%
c) 17.3%
d) 8.4%
e) 6.5%
f) 12.3%
g) 5.6%

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

 

Reference: 9784-18
Date: 02/07/2018 I write in response to your request for information received in this office on 4th June.  I note you seek the following:

- In the last five financial years - 2017/18, 2016/17, 2015/16, 2014/15 and 2013/14 - what is the total amount of overtime hours worked by officers in your force. Can I get a breakdown of each financial year?
- In the last five financial years, what is the total amount of money paid out by your force to officers in overtime payments? Can I have a breakdown of each financial year?
- In the last financial year - 2017/18 - what were the the five highest individual overtime payments made by your force to officers.

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  In response your email please accept  our apologies as our system did have a glitch but this information is due today,  as day one of the request is the day after the request is received in this office.

Hours worked by financial year (the hours provided are after overtime enhancements which will include rest day/bank holiday enhancements);

• April 1, 2013 - March 31, 2014            86,725 hours
• April 1, 2014 - March 31, 2015            133,656 hours
• April 1, 2015 - March 31, 2016            122,545 hours
• April 1, 2016 - March 31, 2017            121,447 hours
• April 1, 2017 – March 31, 2018           125,311 hours

Overtime cost by financial year the costs do not include the NI implications of overtime.

• April 1, 2013 - March 31, 2014             £1,518K
• April 1, 2014 - March 31, 2015             £2,368K
• April 1, 2015 - March 31, 2016             £2,130K
• April 1, 2016 - March 31, 2017             £2,163K
• April 1, 2017 - March 31, 2018             £2,288K

Top 5 Overtime Payments for financial year 17/18

1) £17,220.96
2) £16,532.77
3) £15,241.46
4) £14,441.71
5) £13,516.38

The overtime figures/costs include all overtime paid to Cleveland officers of which there will be hours recharged to other forces etc for mutual aid/operational needs.

Reference: 9783-18
Date: 02/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 2nd June and received by Cleveland Police on 4th June 2018.  I note you seek the following information:

For the period 1st January 2018 to 31st March 2018 can you please tell me how many drone/UAV related calls have been received by Cleveland Police, with a breakdown of the nature of the incident, any action taken, and the month the call was received.
a) In the period specified there have been 60 Drone/UAV related calls made to Cleveland Police, we have attached a document that provides as much of the information requested as we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9782-18
Date: 12/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 4th June.  Please accept our apologies for the late response.  I note you seek the following information:

Do you have dedicated mobile device forensic examiners?
a)  Yes, three full time phone examiners and two hybrid examiners able to examine computers and phones.
What is their level of education and training?
a)  Cleveland utilise training programs by CELLEBRITE and MSAB. These specialise in the software that Cleveland use in order to conduct Mobile phone extraction and analysis.
What specialist training and qualifications do they have for mobile device examinations?
a)  As above.
How many devices per annum receive a full physical and logical examination?
a) No information held. The management software utilised by Cleveland Police is not set up to differentiate between physical and logical.
How many devices per annum receive only a full physical examination?
a)  No information is held.  See above
Do you have specially trained analysts who can recover and interpret data not covered by industry standard tools?
a) There are no defined industry tools therefore our answer is no information is held.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9781-18
Date: 03/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 1st June.  Please accept our apologies for the late response due to staffing issues.  I note you seek the following:

Q1 Please indicate which Police force you are responding on behalf.
a)  Cleveland Police

Q2 Do you provide autism training for Police Officers/Staff? If you select yes there are a maximum of six further questions.
a) No

Having made enquiries within the Force and there is no specific autism training delivered however Diversity is a key thread throughout all training and this would potentially be where individuals with Autism would be considered and discussed.

Reference: 9780-18
Date: 29/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 1st June.  I note you seek the following:

Please could you tell me how much your force has spent on hypnotherapy in the last five years?

If you could also include why the money was spent, eg hypnotherapy to help witnesses recall events.

Having made enquires within the Force the answer to your question is no information is held.

Reference: 9779-18
Date: 29/06/2018 I write in connection with you request for information received in this office on 1st June.  I note you seek the following:

Please provide the following information:
The number of disseminations from the National Fraud Investigation Bureau.
The number of these cases which ended in a positive outcome (eg. arrest, charge).
I would like the information provided electronically and to cover the past five years, separated by year

Having made enquiries within the Force we have been advised that Action Fraud disseminations are not flagged on our systems so we are unable to differentiate between such disseminations and Action Fraud crimes created by Cleveland Police to a call for service.  However we do hold some information which will not be totally accurate as it should be noted that disseminations often include multiple victims. For example, if dissemination has 30 victims then it is actually 30 disseminations (as counted by Action Fraud). However, due to existing processes this would appear below as only one.
2013 – 33
2014 – 54
2015 – 76
2016 – 84
2017 – 32
2018 to date of request – 15

For the second part of the request we would rely on the following:
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request there are 21 different crime outcomes set by the Home Office and you would need to tell us which of the outcomes you regard as being ‘positive’.  However, to extract this data all disseminations would need retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and taking into account the information given above which suggests the actual number of disseminations since 2013 is over 500, (i.e. the figure above plus multiple victims) we estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  However as a gesture of goodwill outside the act we have provided the above information that was retrieved before it was estimated it would take over the allotted time.

Reference: 9778-18
Date: 03/07/2018 Does your force have any internal policies, guidance, checklists, toolkits or training materials for officers that relate to:

1. Prosecution of victims of trafficking for offences committed as a result of being trafficked, and the statutory defence under section 45 Modern Slavery Act 2015.
2. Prosecution of asylum seekers for possession of false identity documents, and the statutory defence under section 31 Immigration and Asylum Appeals Act 1991.

Having made enquiries within the Force we follow College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice.  The Modern Day Slavery Policy has been removed and there is currently work being done through the Anti-Slavery network on Victim care pathways and once this work is completed it is intended to create a new Policy Document

 

Reference: 9777-18
Date: 29/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 1st June.  I note you seek the following:

1.    How many fixed penalty notices for driving without due care and attention were issued by your force between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017?
a)  8
2.    How many fixed penalty notices for driving without reasonable consideration to other users were issued by your force between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017?
a)  1
3.    How many traffic offence reports (TORs) for driving without due care and attention were issued by your force between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017?
a)  69
4.    How many traffic offence reports (TORs) for driving without reasonable consideration to other users were issued by your force between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017?
a)  24

Having made enquires within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  The numbers are in relation to an office issues a TOR (Traffic offence report) and the FPN refers to a conditional officer which is sent out by Central Ticket office rather than the ticket issued at the scene.

Reference: 9776-18
Date: 28/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 1st June.  I note you seek the following:

Under the freedom of information act I am enquiring to the whereabouts of the Caucasion Shepherd named General.
You are more than familiar with this case since January when another Caucasian Shepherd was shot & killed in Hartlepool, consequently the owner was brought to justice and sentenced, well done!
My enquiry stands with what (he) did with the other dog, General.
I am fed up of reading persistent rumours on social media & newspapers regarding this dog.
This should be put to rest & everyone move on.
You were very accommodating the previous times I contacted you and I am hoping that you will oblige again.

Having made enquiries within the Force the German Shepherd dog General was dealt with by the RSPCA.  Therefore we do not hold this information and you will need to direct your enquires to them.

Reference: 9775-18
Date: 29/06/2018 I write in connection with you request for information received in this office on 1st June.  I note you seek the following:

• How many people in Middlesbrough have football banning orders which mean they won't be able to attend the World Cup in Russia beginning June 14?
If possible could you provide their names and photographs?

Having made enquiries within the Force 36 Middlesbrough fans have a football banning order.  For the next part of the request we would rely on the following:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(91)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 40(5) Personal Information
 
This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.
Section 40 is an absolute exemption, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.  In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.

On this occasion some of the information requested is personal information and disclosure would contravene the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 - fair and lawful processing , what are the likely expectations of the data subjects, in that would they expect the Cleveland Police to release their personal details to the world, since release of information under The Freedom of Information Act 2000, is release to the world at large and not just to the individual applicant and as such I believe to do so would amount to unfair processing and hence therefore is exempt under Sections 40(2)(a), 40(3)(a)(i), and 40(3)(b).

Reference: 9773-18
Date: 22/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 31st May.  I note you seek the following:

I am completing the GDPR policies and procedures for a security systems installer in the North East (IBS Security Solutions in Blaydon) and I have identified several police forces that they pass their customer’s personal data to, one of which is Cleveland Police.

I can’t find a GDPR privacy policy on your website and was hoping that you could email a copy to me so that I can complete IBS’s policies.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Cleveland Police when refusing such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you  the applicant with a notice which (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption and (c) states (if it would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption(s) applies.

Notice of Non-Disclosure:
I am not disclosing the above requested information pursuant to the exemption provisions of Section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section 21 of the Act (Information Reasonably Accessible by Other Means) states that information is exempt information if it is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Section 21 is an absolute exemption and where information falls within the scope of an absolute exemption, a public authority is not obliged to communicate it to an applicant and is also not obliged to comply with the duty to confirm or deny the existence of the information requested.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request.

Having made enquiries this information is on the Cleveland Police website www.Cleveland.police.uk  in the menu search function if you type Privacy Policy this will take you to this which has been on the website since 25th May.

Reference: 9772-18
Date: 27/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 30th May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information that I have been able to obtain/retrieve for you.

I am writing to make an open government request for all the information to which I am entitled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please send me:

1. For 2017
i) A monthly break down for the number of reported rape cases reported to your police force
a) We have attached document that contains information regarding reported crimes.
ii) The wait time for sexual assault forensic exams
a) We have attached a document that provides a breakdown on the number of examinations and we have been advised that there is no wait time, as the examinations are arranged according to the availability of the examiner and the ability of the IP to give consent. There is a Sexual Offence Examiner on duty in custody 24/7.

Reference: 9771-18
Date: 29/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office eon 30th May.  I note you seek the following:

1.            Are Cleveland Police currently trialling or using, or have the force ever trialled or used, any form of predictive policing programme?
If so, please provide the following information:
2.            The name given to this predictive policing programme
3.            When the programme was first used and whether it is still in use / when use ceased
4.            How this predictive policing programme works, specifically:
4.1.         What data is used by the programme 
4.2.         Whether it operates using algorithms or artificial intelligence
4.3.         What human interaction or oversight is required
5.            The specific hardware and/or software used to build this predictive policing programme
6.            Any guidance documents provided in relation to the use of this predictive policing programme
7.            Any testing or research conducted in relation to this predictive policing programme
7.1.         In particular, any examination as to potential bias within the software and the exacerbation of pre-existing inequalities
8.            The Privacy Impact Assessment conducted in relation to this predictive policing programme

Having made enquiries within the Force we are currently not using or conducting a trial of predictive policing.  Therefore the answers to your questions are no information held.

Reference: 9770-18
Date: 27/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 30th May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

1. How much money has been spent on consultants and advisers by Cleveland Police in each of the last three financial years? (2015/16, 2016/17, and 2017/18)
Please break this down by year.
2. For each year, please break down by:
The company
The amount of money
Details of the particular contract: please provide a summary of each contract, and if possible, also provide any documentation which outlines what the project entails. 
If it is not possible to answer this request in its entirety due to one or more questions exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please answer the ones that do not exceed the limits and disregard the ones that do.

If it is not possible to provide any of the information requested due to the request exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under your Section 16 obligations, as to how I can refine my request to be included in the scope of the Act.

Following enquiries within the force Cleveland Police would rely upon the following;

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having made enquiries regarding your request we have been advised that the Accounts payable system and General ledger used by Cleveland Police does not identify suppliers and/or expenditure by “Consultants” and therefore the only way to obtain this information would be to extract all payments for “Professional Fees”.  The accuracy of this information is dependent on the use of the correct coding of any invoice and investigation of each transaction to establish if this was for consultancy services.  Additionally whilst there may also be some “consultancy fees” built into our capital projects, this would again need analysis project by project and transaction by transaction to establish which payments related to “Consultancy Services”.  It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.
We would normally advise how you could refine your request so that we could provide the data requested, however we have asked for advice regarding refinement and have been advised that even one year may take in excess of the appropriate time limit.  Should you wish to submit a request for one year’s information we will log the new request and endeavour to retrieve the information?

 

Reference: 9769-18
Date: 27/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 30th May.  I note you seek the following information:

I would like to request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act.
Please can you provide details of the number of offences that you have recorded where the word “Brexit” is cited in the crime report or description of the offence.  I would be grateful if you could break down the types of offences. Please could you search the data set and provide the information since June 23, 2016 - the date of the EU referendum.

Having made enquiries within the Force and in the time period specified there have been no crimed incidents that included the word Brexit however there have been 2 incidents closed as advice and ASB.
a)  An elderly male made a complaint of hate crime with regards to Vince Cable making a speech on the BBC where he accused the elderly generation of stealing the future as the elderly generation are responsible for voting in favour of brexit.  He believes this was said to incite hatred towards the elderly generation.
b)  Caller was involved in a conversation re brexit and was abused by a market stall holder was not happy with some of the comments.

Reference: 9768-18
Date: 27/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 29th May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on 30th May 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information that I have been able to obtain/retrieve for you.

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  I would like the following information for the last three full financial years for which data are available:
 
A breakdown of crime outcomes in reported crimes of domestic abuse (i.e. those marked with the 'domestic' indicator) by ethnicity and nationality of the victim.  If you do not record either of these data points, or they have not been recorded in any instances, please state this and provide whatever information you do have recorded.
We have made enquiries within the force and have attached a document that contains all of the information the analysts are able to retrieve.  Data relating to ethnicity and nationality of the victim is not always stated on the crime report so we not provided it as any data provided would not be an accurate representation.

Please note any outcomes shown are as of the date the data was collected (14th June 2018).

Reference: 9767-18
Date: 27/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 30th May.  I note you seek the following information:

Pursuant to section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I should be grateful if you would provide an updated response i.e. confirm whether any of your officers are now authorised to use ‘spit hoods’, ‘spit guards’ or similar devices and if so provide any documents at referenced at (a) below which have been generated since you responded to our request in 22 August 2016.  Similarly, if none of your officers are now authorised to use spit hoods, etc then please provide any documents referenced at (b) below which have been generated since you responded to our request in 22 August 2016.

Having made enquiries Cleveland Police do not use spit hoods, spit guards or any similar devices therefore the answer to your question is no information held.

Reference: 9766-18
Date: 25/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 29th May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the information detailed below.

Regarding facial image data and facial recognition technology:

1. Does the Force have a stored database of facial images?
2. How many images are currently on the database?
3. Please provide statistics on how many of the images appear to be people belonging to black and ethnic minority groups, if known
4. For each of the last three years, please list from where the Force has obtained images (eg. custody images, online sources (please state which companies or websites), intelligence lists, Interpol, etc.) and how many images were obtained from each source
5. Does the Force take stills images from video footage? Which video sources have still images been taken from? (eg. police CCTV, local councils’ CCTV, body-worn cameras, privately-owned CCTV). For each of the last three years, how many images were obtained from each video source?
6. For each of the last three years, how many requests have the Force’s officers and staff made to search Facebook, SnapChat, Instagram and Twitter for images and/or video footage? (Please give figures for each company) How many of these requests have been granted?
7. For each of the last three years, on how many occasions has the force made requests to Facebook, SnapChat, Instagram and Twitter for images or video? (Please give figures for each company) And how many of the requests were granted?
8. For each source of images, including those taken from video footage and social media, please state how long are the images are stored, and under what circumstances are they deleted
9. For each of the last three years, how many people have requested to have their image(s) removed from the Force’s database? How many requests have been granted?
10. Has the force taken biometric data from the images? If so, please list the sources of the images from which biometric data has been taken (eg custody images, CCTV, online sources)
11. Does the force now, has it ever, or is it planning to use technology to match facial images?
If so, what technology is/was used, who supplies it, how much does it cost?
12. When attempting to match images, please state from which sources the images were obtained (eg. custody images matched with CCTV, online sources matched with body-worn video, etc)
13. On how many occasions has matching been carried out, and how many images were used?
How many arrests and convictions have resulted from the image matching technology?
14. What has been the so-called “false positive” rate? (ie. instances in which the technology matches the images, but they are not in fact the same person)
15. Has the force done any testing around the matching system’s ability to handle images of people who appear to belong to black and minority ethnic groups? If so,  what testing and what  were the outcomes?

Having made enquiries regarding this request Cleveland Police would rely upon the following.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Following enquiries within the Force regarding your request we have been advised that the number of images held on Cleveland Police Databases is unknown and having contacted the administrator they have advised that all the Photographs are from Custody records and that whilst the information may be recorded we do not have the facility to search in bulk and to try and provide the information for question 2 alone would require either the manual retrieval and reading of each record to collate a breakdown of black and ethnic minorities or the creation of a new software programme piece of work which would have cost implications.  It is estimated that, for one year alone, this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information 
Please note we would normally suggest that you refine your request but unfortunately on this occasion we unable to provide any advice on how you could do this.

Please note that any statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9765-18
Date: 27/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 29th May.  I note you seek the following:

My questions are around the hobby of Living History membership within the Police Force.

Historical Reenactment or Living History is an educational or entertainment activity in which people recreate aspects of an historical event or period. It will involve the person dressing in period attire ( usually military) attending organised events and role playing that time frame period. It could include Vikings, Napoleonic or WW2 time frames for example.

Do you hold numbers of how many sworn officers and civilian staff employed by your force belong to or engage in Living History Re-enactment events in their spare time?

Do they have to seek permission to join such groups from your Chief Constable?

Have any members of staff been asked to resign from such groups once it is apparent they engage in this hobby outside of their normal work?

Are specific restrictions placed on your staff ( sworn and unsworn) preventing them from joining certain Living History groups? e.g. American Civil War confederate , WW2 German etc due to perceived public perception?

Having made enquiries within various Departments in the Force we do not hold this information it would only be recorded with us if it was a Business interest and they received a wage from it and we do not have any listed as a Business interest.

Reference: 9764-18
Date: 27/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 29th May.  I note you seek the following:

1) A breakdown of all translation and interpretation services your police force has employed between the financial years 2009/10 - 2017/18, including the cost of each service.
 
If the above information is not available for any of the years in the stated range (2009/10 - 2017/18), please supply information for the financial years within this range for which you do hold data.
 
2) A breakdown of your budget for translation and interpretation services in the current financial year (2018/19).

3) A breakdown of your projected budget for translation and interpretation services in the financial year 2019/20 (if available).

Having made enquires within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  We cannot breakdown the cost by interpreter/language and these may include interpretation costs for sign language. 

Apr 11 – Mar 12 - £156,518.72
Apr 12 – Mar 13 - £145,373.69
Apr 13 – Mar 14 - £110,167.53
Apr 14 – Mar 15 - £72,094.26
Apr 15 – Mar 16 - £73,896.69
Apr 16 – Mar 17 - £77,025.81
Apr 17 – Mar 18 - £46,337.91

The budget for 2018/19 is £74.3k
The budget for 2019/20 will currently be at the same level, though could be subject to change.

Reference: 9763-18
Date: 26/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 27th May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information that I have been able to obtain/retrieve for you.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following information:

1. The number of arrests in relation to Legal Highs or New Psychoactive Substances:
Please split the number of arrests between: supplying, production to supply, possession with intent to supply, importation and possession in a custodial institution.
i) 2016/17 (Full Year)
a) None
ii) 2017/ 2018 (Full Year)
a) One, Possess a psychoactive substance with intent to supply

2. The number of charges in relation Legal Highs or New Psychoactive Substances:
Please split the number of charges between: supplying, production to supply, possession with intent to supply, importation and possession in a custodial institution.
i) 2016/17 (Full Year)
a) N/A
ii) 2017/18 (Full Year)
a) 1 x Possess a psychoactive substance with intent to supply, x 2 Bring/throw/convey a List ‘A’ prohibited Article into/out of a prison, 1 x Possess with intent to supply a Controlled drug of Class C - Other

Please note we have been advised by the analysts that they were only able to search for Psychoactive Substances’

 

Reference: 9762-18
Date: 26/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 26th May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information that I have been able to obtain/retrieve for you.

Can you please tell me how many people were arrested in your police force area in the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 under either?
Section 120 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Police Act (2014), which makes breaking a Forced Marriage Protection Order a criminal offence;
Section 121 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014), which makes the act of forced marriage a criminal offence in England and Wales.
Can you please tell me how many people were arrested on suspicion of section 120 and 121 offences and report them to me for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017?
I imagine this will require three categories for each year: # number arrested for s 120, # number arrested for s 121 # number arrested for s 120 AND s 121.
Could you please also report the outcomes -- i.e. how many were charged and bailed to court, charged and detained for court, received postal requisitions, etc.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 40(2) (a) Personal Information
Section 44(1) Information covered by prohibitions on disclosure
This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.
Sections 40 and 44 are absolute exemptions, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.  In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.
None of the above can be viewed as an inference that information does or does not exist.

 


 

Reference: 9761-18
Date: 26/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 29th May.  I note you seek the following:

1.       The number of crimes that have been screened ‘out’ for further investigation or ‘filed’ shortly after it was reported to the police. These are cases which do not qualify for investigation after an initial screening process. Please provide this information for the calendar years 2014-17, and to date (May 25th) for 2018. Please break this information down into individual offence as per the Count Offence Classification Index.

2.       Please can you provide me with the number of crimes reported to your force for the calendar years 2014-17 and to date (May 25th) for 2018. Please break this information down into individual offence as per the Count Offence Classification Index.

Having made enquiries within the Force and we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9759-18
Date: 26/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 25th May.  I note you seek the following:

For the years 2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017…
How many incidents of burglary were reported to your force?
How many crime reports for burglary were raised by your force?
How many people were charged or summons for burglary by your force? (if the same individual was charged/summons twice please count them twice)

Please answer giving the data for each individual question for each individual year.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9758-18
Date: 25/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 25th May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

Please provide the following information, for your jurisdiction, with regard to Police Escorting of Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AIL) as described by The Road Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2003.

1. How many abnormal load notifications were received between April 2016 – April 2017?
a) We are unable to provide the number of notifications as we only record the movements and some hauliers may notify of multiple movements, as a single communication, at any one time.  The total number of movements in the time specified was 4911.
2. How many AIL police escorts were undertaken between April 2016 – April 2017?
a) 18
3. What is the total invoiced amount for these escorts?
a) £13,280.96
4. What is the total amount which remains unpaid for the escorts?
a) Nothing, Full payment has been received on all invoices.
5. Out of the total amount unpaid how much has been ‘written off’ as bad debt?
a) N/A
Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.


 

Reference: 9757-18
Date: 25/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 25th May.  I note you seek the following:

1.                   (a) How many officers are employed by your force and (b) how many of them hold full driving licences.
a)   1287 as of 30/04/2018
b)  All as when applying for the role of a Police Officer all applicants are asked to confirm that they hold a full driving licence at the point of application or that they will hold one by the point (if successful) they are appointed into the role.  In addition, as part of the on boarding process they all attend an appointment with the Force Medical Advisor who is required to sign a D1 licence form that requires them to include their driving licence number.

2.                   According to the College of Policing definition of trained driver’s officers can be considered as either basic, standard/response and advanced. Please state how many officers you have at the (a) basic level, (b) standard/response level and (c) advanced level.
a)   Basic Drivers 356
b)   Standard/Response Drivers 746
c)   Advanced Drivers 150
(35 have yet to be seen by the Force Driver Training)

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9756-18
Date: 26/06/2018

 

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 24th May.  I note you seek the following:

 

Under the Freedom of Information Act, please can you provide data on the number of times tasers were used against children aged under 18 in each of the local authorities covered by the police force in 2017.

a) 9

1 – Hartlepool

1 – Middlesbrough

1 – Redcar & Cleveland

6 –Stockton

 

Please provide the above data broken down by age and categories of use: Drawn, Aimed,

Arced, Red Dotted, Drive Stun, Angled Drive Stun and Fired.

a) 15yrs - 1 Drawn and aimed and 1 n/k

    16yrs – 2 Drawn and aimed and 1 n/k

    17yrs – 1 Drawn and 3 Drawn and aimed  

 

Please could you also provide information on the youngest person a taser was used against (age, category of use). 

a) see above

 

If possible, please provide details of the incidents where a taser was used.

a)  Details of the incidents are not recorded on the form.

 

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9755-18
Date: 25/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 24th May.  I note you seek the following:

I would like to find out

a) How many times your force has requested a Drug Dealing Telecommunications Restriction Order since the legislation came into force in 2017?

b) How many times your force has been granted a Drug Dealing Telecommunications Restriction Order since the act came into force?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;

Sections 23 is an absolute exemptions, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.  In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.
Sections 31(3) being a prejudiced based qualified exemptions, there is a requirement for us to evidence harm confirming or denying information is held and also consider the public interest.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the question exists, would enable the public to see where public funds are being spent. Better public awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the question exists, law enforcement tactics could be compromised which could hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime could be committed and individuals placed at risk.

Balance test - The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so could undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of national security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any other information relevant to your request exists is not made out.  None of the above can be viewed as an inference that any other information does or does not exist.

Reference: 9754-18
Date: 25/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 24th May.  I note you seek the following information:

1. Do you have a transgender equality policy document (or equivalent) in your force? If so can you provide me with a copy.

NOTE: By (or equivalent) I mean a document in your force that spells out what reasonable adjustments should be made to accommodate transgender staff within your force.

Having made enquiries Cleveland Police do not have a Transgendger policy we adhere to the Equality Act 2010.  However we are in the process of producing a new piece of guidance in respect of transgender issues.

Reference: 9753-18
Date: 03/07/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 24th May 2018 which was received by this office on 19th April 2018.  Please accept our apologies for the late response due to staffing issues.  I note you seek access to the below information:

The latest available annual figures (January to December 2017) for the number of reported crimes committed against people aged 65 and over in Cleveland.


The figures for the number of reported crimes committed against people aged 65 and over the previous year (January to December 2016).
The figures for the number of reported crimes committed against people aged 65 and over 10 years ago (January to December 2007).
A breakdown into categories of the types of crimes committed against people aged 65 and over for each of the three years.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have provided a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.  The analyst is only able to provide crimes where we have a valid date of birth for the victim as this is how the age is calculated.

Reference: 9752-18
Date: 21/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 23rd May.  I note you seek the following:

Could you please disclose how many incidents have been reported to your force involving the words 'Tinder' and/or 'Grindr' and, separated, "Facebook"  in the last three full calendar year?
Please disclose:
1) The nature and details of the incident
2) The location
3) If it was classed as a crime
4) What the outcome was (NFA, Out of court disposal, charged etc)

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request the analyst who produced this has stated for the word ‘Facebook’ over the 3 financial years (as that is how the data is held) there were nearly 1600 crimes. The search engine does not pick up keywords in the MO field accurately so they had to do a manual search.  To ascertain all the above information, they would have to type out the information and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  However as a gesture of good will outside of the Act they have provided the attached document which provides 3 tabs for Facebook crimes, showing how many recorded crimes of each crime type had ‘facebook’ in the MO per month in that year only as they would have to manually look at each crime to see the location and outcome and again this would take over the specified time allotted. They have completed another tab for all Tinder and Grindr crimes to which there were no Tinder crimes which were specific for the offence.

Reference: 9751-18
Date: 20/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 23rd May.  I note you seek the following:
1.       In each of the last three years, in how many cases did a woman report an abusive partner, ex-partner or stalker to police for threatening behaviour and go on to be killed by that partner?
a) 0 (although we have one where she was a victim of harassment)
2.       In each of the cases, please specify where applicable if the case was referred to the IOPC for investigation, and what the determination of the IOPC case was (referral back to police, or a judgement), if this does not exceed the cost limit.
a) 0

Having made enquiries within the Force all the information we have been able to retrieve is above.

Reference: 9750-18
Date: 21/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 22nd May.  I note you seek the following:

Could you please provide details of how much it cost Cleveland Police to police every Middlesbrough home game in the 2017/18 season, and how much the force charged the club as a result.

I would like the information broken down by match please.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

 

Reference: 9749-18
Date: 21/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 22nd May.  I note you seek the following:

A) On each sheet the number of crimes where there is present on the crime records a branch flag for Homophobic Hate Crime (HO or HR); for each of the calendar years from 2007 - 2018; further broken down by:      
Sheet 1. MAJOR AND MINOR CRIME CLASSIFICATION – The main category and subcategory of the crime, e.g. Major – 11: Violence Against the Person; Minor – 110: Homicide; or 111: Violence with Injury; or 112: Violence without injury
Sheet 2: AREA – The area in which the offence occurred, which may be categorized depending on the police force by: Area, or Borough, or Operational Command Unit (sometimes listed as SUMMARY X OCU)
Sheet 3: SELF DEFINED ETHNICITY OF SUSPECT – e.g. A1: Asian – Indian; A2: Asian – Pakistani
Sheet 4: SELF DEFINED ETHNICITY OF VICTIM – as above
Sheet 5: GENDER OF SUSPECT – the gender of the suspect, usually Female, Male or Unknown/unrecorded
Sheet 6: GENDER OF VICTIM – as above
Sheet 7: AGE OR AGE GROUP – the age or age group of the suspect and victim
Sheet 8: CLEAR UP METHOD – whether Undetected, Charge or Summons, Caution or Community Resolution (Clear Up Method is the categorization used for outcomes, in most police forces prior to April 2014)
Sheet 9: OUTCOME - the expanded outcomes list introduced by the Home Office to most forces in April 2014 (e.g. number of charges or conviction)      
B) For A) to be repeated except searching for a branch flag for Transgender Hate Crime (HT) instead of homophobic hate crime

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.  The information is from 2010-11 as that is when the hate qualifiers began. The information is broken down into what the National Community Tension Team and the Home Office require.  With regards to convictions it the duty  of Cleveland Police to identify, apprehend suspects, decisions regarding prosecutions is the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service and Convictions is that of HM Courts Service therefore Conviction data is held by HM Courts.   


 

Reference: 9748-18
Date: 02/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 21st May 2018 and received by Cleveland Police on 22nd May 2018.  Please accept our apologies for the late response caused by staffing issues; your patience is very much appreciated.  I note you seek the following information:

1. Can you breakdown the categories of the all calls relating to drones? I.e. how many calls were from legal operators, how many were reports of noise nuisance and so on?
a) There were a total of 103 calls related to Drones/UAV’s, 32 were in relation to pre-planned operations, messages or Police Generated incidents.
2. Of the calls made to the police on the subject of drones, how many calls actually turned out to be crimes being committed? How many were attended by officers and how many led to an arrest?
a) We can advise that there were 17 crimes involving Drones. 1 where a Drone was used and 16 theft of Drones
3. In total, how many calls were made to your force through 101/999 in 2017 on all subject matters.
a) During 2017 there were a total of 103508 999 calls and 240641 101 (non 999) calls

We have attached a document that holds all of the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9747-18
Date: 21/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 22nd May.  I note you seek the following:

1) The number of CBOs that have been issued to under 18s (at the time of CBO being issued) living within the police force's jurisdiction since the introduction of CBOs in October 2014.

Please may I have this information displayed:
a) By year
b) By month

Having made enquiries within the Force we only keep records of current CBO’s and we do not hold any records of expired CBO’s.  Currently we have seven CBO’s whom where under 18 years old when they were issued.
2018 – 3
2017 – 4
The Inspector of Communities and Partnerships has suggested that partner agencies such as Youth Offending, CPS or the Courts may hold the information you require.

Reference: 9746-18
Date: 21/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 22nd May.  I note you seek the following:
The information I seek is:
1. How many cases of county lines activity did your force investigate between April 2017 and April 2018?
2. How many county lines are currently operating within the area of your force’s jurisdiction?
 
Additionally, I seek the following information.  If it is impossible to deal with question 3 and 4 below within the statutory limit on staff hours which can be dedicated to the request, please discount them.
 3. How many arrests have been made in relation to county lines activity between April 2017 and April 2018?
4. How many arrests of under 18 year olds have been made in relation to county lines activity between April 2017 and April 2018?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(2) National Security;
Section 30(3) Investigations;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;
 
Sections 24, and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test. 
Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a public interest test.

Overall harm
Although every effort should be made to release information under the Freedom of Information Act, to confirm or deny whether information is or isn’t held relating to county lines at a force level could not only undermine on-going investigations, but also the National Security.  Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, providing assurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat from criminals, this should be countered against the need to protect vulnerable areas, and on-going Policing operational activity.  The security of the country is of paramount importance and Cleveland Police Force will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so would undermine national security. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by county lines activity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in the highly sensitive areas of which they work.  Confirming or denying whether any information is held relevant to the request would show where policing interest has or has not occurred in any specific area which would enable those engaged in criminal activity to identify the focus of policing targets and identify vulnerable parts of the UK.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial - Section 24
Confirmation or denial that any information exists relevant to the request would lead to a better informed public. The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent especially with regards to safeguarding National Security.

Factors against confirmation or denial - Section 24
Other organisations outside the Police Service may, or may not, have an active interest in the subject of the question above.  By confirming or denying that any information exists relevant to the request would harm the close relationship that exists between Cleveland Police Force and other organisations.  To confirm or deny whether the force hold any information relevant to the request would allow inferences to be made about the nature and extent of national security related activities which may or may not take place in a given area. This would enable criminal groups to take steps to counter intelligence, and as such, confirmation or denial would be damaging to National Security.  By confirming or denying any policing arrangements of this nature would render national security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of on-going or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial – Section 31
Confirming or denying whether any further information is held would allow the public to see where public funds have been spent and allow the Police service to appear more open and transparent.

Factors favouring neither confirming or denying – Section 31
To confirm or deny that law enforcement holds this information could compromise law enforcement tactics which would lead to a hindrance on the Police Force’s ability to prevent and detect crimes. Vulnerable areas could be identified by force level disclosure leading to more criminal activity placing the public in harm’s way. If information is released confirming or denying that requests have been made this may impact police resources as vulnerable forces may need to increase their resources to reassure the public and protect the surrounding community.

Overall balancing test 
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing information regarding County lines, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in these sensitive areas.  Any information identifying the focus of specific policing activity, such as details of arrests relating to your request, could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety, and have a negative impact on both National Security and law enforcement.  As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of National Security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.  It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.

Reference: 9745-18
Date: 20/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 29th May.  I note you seek the following:

I see that all police forces are routinely asked to supply location data to the Home Office for the police.uk service which maps neighbourhood crime. Every crime is mapped with longitude and latitude data and can be downloaded for all forces here: https://data.police.uk/data/.  Included in this data is the location category ‘On or near Supermarket’.  I would therefore like to request that my original request be refined to the following:
The date and outcome (i.e. arrest, charge, not enough evidence) of every individual incident of modern slavery (Offence Code 106) recorded by your force for the location category ‘on or near Supermarket’. Please include the longitude and latitude for each recorded incident for the calendar years 2016, 2017, and to date in 2018.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request we have been advised that information relating to “On or near a supermarket” this is produced by the police.uk website that calculates the nearest snap point where the crime is mapped to, i.e. the supermarket, from the co-ordinates we provide.  When a crime is recorded by Cleveland Police the Eastings and Northings (Latitude and Longitude) are the exact location that the crime has occurred.  The information is provided by Cleveland Police to data.police.uk in that (un-sanitised) format and it is them that apply ‘safe points’ to the data to make it safe for publication.
We have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.  This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 30(3) Investigations;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;
Section 40(5) Personal Information 
Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a public interest test.

Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 30
The public is entitled to know what their public funds are spent on.  Investigations may be closed and any proceedings may have been completed, and the investigations may have been high profile and had national implications.

Factors against confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 30
By confirming or denying holding anymore information the force’s future law enforcement capabilities would be affected and this would hinder the prevention and detection of crime.

Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 31: Disclosure could provide the investigating officers with additional information.
Public awareness: Disclosure of the information in relation to an on-going investigation may enhance the ability and professionalism of the force and individual officers.

Factors against confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 31:
Public safety: By the inappropriate release of information at this time could impact the on-going investigation and or the Court system.

Balancing Test: Whilst the public interest considerations favouring disclosure are noted in considering the arguments for and against release of the information requested, the balance in the public interest favours non-disclosure. To disclose at this moment in time could lead to other law enforcement either be compromised or significantly weaken any on-going investigations and any future investigations.

On this occasion some of the information requested is personal information and disclosure would contravene the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 - fair and lawful processing , what are the likely expectations of the data subjects, in that would they expect the Cleveland Police to release their personal details to the world, since release of information under The Freedom of Information Act 2000, is release to the world at large and not just to the individual applicant and as such I believe to do so would amount to unfair processing and hence therefore is exempt under Sections 40(2)(a), 40(3)(a)(i), and 40(3)(b).
 

Reference: 9743-18
Date: 19/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 21st May.  I note you seek the following:
Please could you provide a list of crimes recorded in the last 36 months involving:
• The phrase “takeaway” or “takeaways” in the crime address or MO notes.
• The phrase “kebab” or “kebabs” or “grill” in the crime address or MO notes.
• The phrase “chicken shop” or “fried chicken” or “morelys” in the crime MO notes, OR
“chicken” in the crime address notes
• The phrase “curry” or “curry house” or “indian takeaway” in the crime address or MO notes
• The phrase “takeaway” AND “chinese” in the crime address or MO notes
• The phrase “pizza”, or “italian takeaway” in the crime address or MO notes
• The phrase “fish and chips” in the crime address or MO notes
• The phrase “burgers” or “burgers” in the crime address or MO notes
For each crime, could you provide date/time/offense type/detail/address/crime reference number/any injuries (what they were)/and the outcome (e.g. were there arrests, has it been prosecuted).

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have retrieved.  The analyst who completed this has stated that we cannot search for individual words in the MO as is brings back all connotations of the word no matter what the crime however the search was completed using Hospitality; Fast Food in the location.  Below is a link to the home office counting rules which we use to record crime which will identify the offence and with regards to prosecutions it the duty of Cleveland Police to identify, apprehend suspects, decisions regarding prosecutions is the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service and Convictions is that of HM Courts Service therefore Conviction data is held by HM Courts.
   
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/recorded-crime.counting-rules

 

Reference: 9742-18
Date: 19/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 21st May which was received by Cleveland Police on that date. Below are the questions raised in your request and the information I have been able to retrieve for you.

Please provide figures showing the number of occasions the police were called to attend a betting
shop because of a crime that occurred within its premises between 1st April 2017 and 31st March
2018.
Please provide figures showing the number of occasions the police were called to attend a
newsagents because of a crime that occurred within its premises between 1st April 2017 and
31st March 2018.
Please provide figures showing the number of occasions the police were called to attend a
convenience store because of a crime that occurred within its premises between 1st April 2017
and 31st March 2018.

As previously stated enquiries have been made within the force and have been advised that to answer this request we would need a full and definitive list of every Betting Shop, Newsagent or Convenience Store in the area so as to identify if a call was made to the control room for police attendance. So my answer, on this occasion, must be no information held.

Reference: 9741-18
Date: 19/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 21st May.  I note you seek the following:

For each financial year 2014/15, 2015/2016, 2016/17 and 2017/18 we would like to know the following:
1. How many missing people reports did your force receive?
2014/15 – 4263
2015/16 - 4733
2016/17 – 5101
2017/18 – 4939

2. How many of all the missing people reports were children under the age of 16?
2014/15 – 2123
2015/16 – 2315
2016/17 – 2533
2017/18 – 2490

3. How many of all the missing people reports were young people missing from children’s homes?
2014/15 – 643
2015/16 – 837
2016/17 – 1039
 *2017/18 – 1092

4.   How many of all the missing people reports were highlighted as being at risk of child sexual exploitation/abuse?
2014/15 – 242
2015/16 – 656
2016/17 – 170
 *2017/18 – 119

*these totals do not include any figures for December as we were trialling an automated referral system that did identify those categories.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.


 

Reference: 9740-18
Date: 19/06/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 21st May.  I note you seek the following:

I am writing to request data in relation to s.4 Sexual Offences Act 2003; causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Under the Home Office Counting Rules for Sexual Offences, the code associated with this offence is 22A. Reading the codes under this offence as referring to male and female victims when talking about male and female persons, I am specifically interested in those offences coded under 22/2 and 22/3 involving penetration (please see - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/602801/count-sexual-apr-2017.pdf p.40)

In the ‘Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales’ overview tables (available here - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214971/overview-sexual-offending-jan-2013-tables.zip ) data is provided in relation to the reporting of a range of sexual offences, but does not include specific data relating to the offences coded under 22/2 and 22/3. I would like the equivalent of the data provided in these tables and in the same format in relation to the offences coded under 22/2 and 22/3, including a break-down of this data into the defendants’ sex, age group, and ethnicity. This translates to requesting the equivalent information and in the same format as that provided in the following overview tables:

•         3.2

•         3.3

•         3.4

•         3.5

•         3.7

•         3.8

 

I would like this data for the years 2005 to 2011 (reflecting the overview tables), plus any subsequent years it is available.

Having made enquiries within the Force the Cleveland Police has had three recorded crimes of 22/2 and 22/3 in the time period stated. 

2010 – Male aged 32 unknown ethnicity

2011 – 2 offenders unknown.

Reference: 9738-18
Date: 19/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 19th May 2018 in which was received by this office on 21st May 2018.  In our acknowledgement of your request, dated 21st May 2018, we advised you that Cleveland Police:
“can only provide information relating to recorded crimes NOT investigations”, and asked that if this was “not suitable for your needs please advise by return how we may otherwise assist”.  As we have had no further communication from you we have proceeded to request information in relation to recorded crimes and the answers are detailed below.

Following enquiries with the analysts that process such information we have obtained the below information to answer your questions in relation to recorded crimes;

1. Has the instant messaging app “Kik” ever featured in investigations (amended to RECORDED CRIMES) carried out by your force into online Child Exploitation/Grooming/Child abuse imagery?
a) Yes the instant messaging app “Kik” has been referred to in a recorded crime in relation to online Child Exploitation/Grooming/Child abuse imagery

2. How often has Kik appeared in such investigations (amended to RECORDED CRIMES) in the last year (or most recent period available)?
a) The instant messaging app “Kik” has been referred to on 7 occasions in relation to a recorded crime in the last financial year (2017/18)

3. How often has Kik appeared in such investigations (amended to RECORDED CRIMES) in the last 5 years? 
a) The instant messaging app “Kik” has been linked/referred to in relation to 25 recorded crimes during the period 2013/14 – 2017/18

 

 

Reference: 9736-18
Date: 18/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 18th May 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  I note you seek access to the information detailed below;

1. How many of the force’s vehicles have been damaged by potholes in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 so far? Please break the data down by calendar year.
2. How many vehicles does the force own in total?
3. What was the total cost of pothole damage to the force’s vehicles in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 so far? Please break the data down by calendar year.
4. How many of the force’s vehicles had to be written off due to pothole damage in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 so far? Please break the data down by calendar year and vehicle type.
5. Please provide an itemised list of the force’s vehicles damaged by potholes in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 so far. For each incident please indicate vehicle type (eg motorbike, patrol car etc), cost, calendar year the incident was recorded and summary.

We have made enquiries with our Fleet management Department and they have advised us that we do not specifically record ‘Pothole Damage’ so our response to your request, on this occasion, must be no information held.


 

Reference: 9735-18
Date: 18/06/2018 I write in relation to your e-mail request dated 17th May 2018 which was received by this office on 18th May 2018.  Below is the content of your request and the information we have been able to retrieve.
I am an academic researching the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (the DVDS, often known as ‘Clare’s Law’). I wondered if you could help me with the following requests for information, please.

1. Of the first 20 recipients of a disclosure under the DVDS in your force area, counting from the point when the DVDS went into national operation as a policing policy on 8th March 2014, how many of those 20 recipients have since reported, or have been reported, being the victims of some form of domestic abuse perpetrated by the person about whom they requested or were given information about under the DVDS?
a) Of the first 20 recipients of a Clare’s Law disclosure, 13 have been victims of some kind of
Domestic Abuse perpetrated by the person the disclosure was about.

2. Of the first 20 recipients of a disclosure under the DVDS in your force area, counting from the point when the DVDS went into national operation as a policing policy on 8th March 2014, how many of those 20 recipients have since reported, or have been reported, being the victims of some form of domestic abuse perpetrated by any person other than the person about whom they requested or were given information about under the DVDS?
a) Of the first 20 recipients of a Clare’s Law disclosure, 10 have been victims of some kind of
Domestic Abuse perpetrated by another person other than the person the original disclosure was about.  Also of these first 20 recipients of a Clare’s Law disclosure, 5 have never reported being the victim of any further Domestic Abuse by any person.

Reference: 9734-18
Date: 18/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 17th May 2018 in which was received by this office on 18th May 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;

I would like to know the number of reported incidents of hacking from members of the public over the last two financial years.
By hacking I mean complaints of computer hacking e.g. someone attempting to gain unauthorised access to a mobile, computer, social media or email account.
If possible, please include the accompanying police notes with regards to each incident.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

We have made enquiries with the Force Control Room regarding your request and they have advised that a check of their systems returned 1224 such incidents using ‘hack’ which would contain any word with ‘hack’ in it such as hacksaw or shack.  They then broke down the search to ‘hacking’ and ‘hacked’ with a total of 586 for the full period of your request.  They have also warned that using the keywords ‘hacking’ and ‘hacked’ reports identified could also include any report where these words were used such as they were out hacking on ponies or he was hacking at a tree or wooden bench. Each report would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
However as a gesture of goodwill, outside of the Freedom of information Act, we have supplied the information below, relative to your request, retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I hope that this is of help to you and note that it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

Hacked
2016/17 – 230
2017/18 – 221
Hacking
2016/17 – 135
2017/18 – 135

 

Reference: 9733-18
Date: 15/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office o 17th May.   I note you seek the following information:

How many fraud and economic crime offences were committed in a workplace (any public and private limited companies) by an employee or employer between January 1st 2015 – December 31st 2017? If possible can these offences be broken-down by crime type and year outlined in the attached excel document? Any relevant information would be greatly appreciated.

Having made enquiries within the Force and below is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Fraud by false representation Fraud Act 2006 Sec2. - 7
To gain employment by false representation.  Fraud Act 2006 Sec 2. - 4
Fraud by abuse of position.  Fraud Act 2006 Sec 4. - 1
Fraud by False representation Cheque, Plastic Card and Online Bank Accounts (not PSP).  Conspiracy to commit cheque or credit card fraud.  Criminal Justice Act 1987 Sec 12(pt) - 1
Fraud by False representation Cheque, Plastic Card and Online Bank Accounts (not PSP).  Conspiracy to commit cheque or credit card fraud.  Fraud Act 2006 Sec2. -1
Retail Fraud.  Fraud by false respresentation.  Fraud Act 2006 Sec.2 – 1

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon, Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act requires that I provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) state (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information relevant to your request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 31(1) (a) & (b) Law Enforcement;
This should not be taken as an indication that the information you have requested is or is not held by Cleveland Police.

Section 31 is a prejudiced based qualified exemption and there is a requirement for us to evidence harm in confirming or denying whether information is held and also to consider the public interest.

Factors favouring Disclosure:
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve and there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations to ensure investigations, enquiries, etc. are dealt with appropriately.
Factors favouring Non-Disclosure:
Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, to confirm to the world whether a police force was or was not investigating a particular matter or whether any information was or was not held about specified subject could reveal policing activity. The Police Service will never disclose information which could identify investigative activity and therefore undermine their investigations.  To do so would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. 
Balancing Test:
Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, public safety and the ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount importance to the Police Service. Confirmation or denial of whether information is held would undoubtedly compromise law enforcement.  As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of investigative matters both locally and nationally this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.  It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.
In accordance with Section 17(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this notification acts as a Refusal Notice to the breakdown of these figures into years as the figure for Cleveland are so low this might have an impact on any on-going cases.

 

 

 

Reference: 9731-18
Date: 15/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 16th May 2018 in which was received by this office on 17th May 2018.  I note you seek access to the information detailed below;

1.       The number of drivers caught over the legal drink-drive limit in your force area, broken down by month for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 to date.
2.       The number of drivers caught over the legal drink-drive limit in your force area, broken down by age and gender of the offender, and broken down by year for 2016, 2017 and 2018 to date.
3.       The three dates of the year that most people were caught over the legal drink-drive limit in your force area, including the number of offenders caught on each of these days, broken down by year for 2016, 2017 and 2018 to date.

We have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve.  Please Note the information for 2018 is up to the end of April.

Reference: 9730-18
Date: 18/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 17th May.  I note you seek the following:

1. Does your police force hold any current contracts with Viseum, Anyvision, Digital Barriers, Facewatch, or Verint or has it previously ever purchased any of their products?

If yes, please provide details of:
a) How much money your force has spent on these contracts and/or products
b) What products or services were sought in those contracts or purchases
c) The contract lengths
d) When your force purchased the company’s technologies or services
e) The purpose your force purchased the company’s technologies or services for

2. Does your force hold contracts with any other automated facial recognition manufacturers or has it purchased automated facial recognition technology?

If yes, please provide details of:
a) How much money your force has spent on these contracts and/or products
b) What products or services were sought in those contracts or purchases
c) The contract lengths
d) When your force purchased the company’s technologies or services
e) The purpose your force purchased the company’s technologies or services for

3. Please provide details of any correspondence or meetings your force has had with Viseum, Anyvision, Digital Barriers, Facewatch, Verint or any other automated facial recognition vendor.

4. Has your force trialled any products from Visuem, Anyvision, Digital Barriers, Facewatch, Verint or any other automated facial recognition vendors? If so, please provide detail.

Having made enquiries within the Force, Cleveland Police does not hold contracts with any of the above nor have we had any spend with them.  For the other questions we would rely on the below.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that they hold any other information relevant to this request by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 31(3) Law enforcement

Section 24 and Section 31 are both qualified exemptions and as such there is a requirement to evidence any harm confirmation or denial that any other information is held as well as consider the public interest.
Harm in confirming that Information is held
The definition of national security encompasses a wide spectrum and it is our duty to protect the people within the UK. Public safety is of paramount importance to the policing purpose and must be taken into account in deciding whether to disclose whether the information is or is not held. Furthermore, confirming if particular tactics are used and confirming policing methods which are not in the public domain may prejudice the use of this method by allowing criminals to adopt counter measures.
To confirm or deny whether we hold any further information, would allow interested parties to gain an upper hand and awareness of policing policy and decisions used to safeguard national security. To confirm or deny that any other information is held or provide details relating to what may or may not be held may be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public, and this would also impact upon any current investigation.

Public Interest Test
Section 24 –
Factors favouring confirming or denying that any other information is held - Confirming or denial that any other information exists relevant to the request would lead to a better informed public and the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent. The information simply relates to national security and disclosure would not actually harm it.
Factors against confirmation or denial for S24 - To confirm or deny whether Cleveland Police hold any additional information would allow inferences to be made about the nature and extent of national security related activities which may or may not take place. This could enable terrorist groups to take steps to avoid detection, and as such, confirmation or denial would be damaging to national security.
By confirming or denying any policing arrangements of this nature would render national security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of on-going or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure on the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
Section 31 –
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31 - Confirming or denying whether any further information is held would allow the public to see where public funds have been spent and allow the Police service to appear more open and transparent.
Factors against confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying whether any further information is held would mean that law enforcement tactics would be compromised which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime. Security arrangements and tactics are reused and have been monitored by criminal groups, fixated individuals and terrorists. These security arrangements and tactics would need to be reviewed which would require more resources and would add to the cost to the public purse.
Balancing Test
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge whether any other information is or is not held if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine National Security. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, providing assurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat from criminals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both National Security and the integrity of the police in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of National Security; this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.
It is therefore our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or not that any other information is held is not made out.

Reference: 9727-18
Date: 19/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 16th May.  I note you seek the following:

1. Have you invested in technology specifically to comply with GDPR?
a) no
2. Which information security framework(s) have you implemented?
3. Have you signed contractual assurances from all the third-party organisations you work with requiring that they achieve GDPR compliance by 25 May 2018?
a) Yes
4. Have you completed an audit to identify all files or databases that include personally identifiable information (PII) within your organisation?
a)  Yes
5. Do you use encryption to protect all PII repositories within your organisation?
a) Yes
6. As part of this audit, did you clarify if PII data is being stored on, and/or accessed by:
a. Mobile devices
b. Cloud services
c. Third party contractors - YES
7. Does the organisation employ controls that will prevent an unknown device accessing PII repositories?
a)  Yes
8. Does your organisation employ controls that detect the security posture of a device before granting access to network resources – i.e. valid certificates, patched, AV protected, etc.
9. Should PII data be compromised, have you defined a process so you can notify the relevant supervisory authority within 72 hours?
a)  Yes
10. Have you ever paid a ransom demand to have data returned / malware (aka ransomware) removed from systems?
11. To which positions/level does your data protection officer report? i.e. CISO, CEO, etc.
a) Chief Constable or Deputy Chief Constable as SIRO
12.   How many company computing devices (aka smartphones, tablets, laptops, computers) were reported lost and/or stolen in 2017?
a) 400
13. How many people have been prosecuted under the ‘Misuse of Computers Act’ in your region in the last 12 months? Of these how many resulted in a conviction?
a)  No crimes with positive outcomes.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve for the other questions we would rely on the below:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Therefore having looked at your request we consider that the information you have requested is exempt under the following sections of the Freedom of Information Act.

Section 31(3) – Law enforcement

Section 31 is prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.

Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 31
The public is entitled to know what their public funds are spent on and that the police are taking steps to ensure protection re local and/or national concerns.

Factors against confirming or denying whether any other information is held for Section 31
By confirming or denying whether any such information relative to this request exists could lead to future law enforcement capabilities being affected therefore hindering the prevention and detection of crime.

Balance test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so could undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement. Disclosing information regarding such attacks on force systems would provide a mosaic picture to members of the criminal or terrorist fraternity of forces that have been attacked and detected and which forces may have been attacked not detected. It will also infer which forces have the best measures in place to avoid and defer such attacks.
Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any information is held regarding this subject is not made out.
None of the above can be viewed as an inference that the information you seek does or does not exist.

Reference: 9724-18
Date: 26/09/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 16th May.  Please accept our apologies for the late response due to staffing issues.  I note you seek the following:

1. Start and end date of any and all contracts; including any current or scheduled tenders, relating to the Recycling and Procurement of IT products involving equipment such as computers, laptops, mobile devices, mobile device accessories, printers, copiers, scanners, servers, PBX boxes, Teleconferencing equipment, tablets, point-of-sale devices and data storage.
2. Start and end date of any and all contracts; including any current or scheduled tenders, relating to Data Eraser inline with GDPR requirements for, but not limited to, IT equipment (relevant products listed above), Mobile Devices & Tablets.

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

IT Contract:  01/03/17 – 12/12/18
Mobile Phone Contract: 14/06/18 – 13/06/21
Multi-Function Devices: 01/05/16 – 30/04/19

There is no contract for the destruction / recycling of all IT equipment and products  - all are destroyed by a company with no charge to the force.

Multi-Function devices (Printer / Copier / Scanner) are rented and returned to the supplier.

 

Reference: 9723-18
Date: 14/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 15th May.  I note you seek the following information:

1. What current contracts do the Force have in place for mapping and gazetteer management.
 a) Please see below

2. What mapping provider is used in the control room, when is the contract expiry and what is the value of the said contract
a) Please see below

3. What mapping provider is used in the analytical community for intelligence and crime analyst purposes, when is the contract expiry and what is the value of the said contract
a)   Watson Mapping Xanalysis £22,900 per annum 31/5/18 – annually renewable

4. What mapping provider is used for webmapping purposes, either mobile, intranet or both? when is the contract expiry and what is the value of the said contract
a)  Astun Technology – Web Based GIs and IMAP £13,550 per annum currently runs to 16/10/18 with at least another 2 years to go, Mapinfo Professional CDR group 30/6/18 £7770 annually renewable, Public sector mapping agreement FOC

5. What gazetteer provider is used in the Force, when is the contract expiry and what is the value of the said contract
a)  No information held

6. What data providers do the Forces use such as Hopeweiser, QAS, Mosaic etc, when is the contract expiry and what is the value of the said contract
a)  Nametracer QAS and NPS Compass Licence - Northgate 31/3/20 - £68,316 per annum

7. What demand management or demand profiling does the Force utilise? When does the contract expire and what is the value of the said contract
a)  Provided by SopraSteria who are our outsourced business partners as part of the contract.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9722-18
Date: 05/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Please accept my apologies for the late response unfortunately we needed to query some of the data and the person who provided it was on leave, your patience is appreciated. Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you:

Please could you tell me the date you last purchased the following pieces of equipment, how many were purchased and the unit price you paid per item?

1. Riot Shields
2. Batons
3. Standard Issue Handcuffs
4. X26 Taser
5. Anti-riot leg guards

1. Riot Shields
a) 14 x Modular Shields and 2 x Modular Training Shields were purchased on 8.2.18 from Devon & Cornwall Framework Contract

2. Batons
a) ASP 16” last ordered 24th January 2018 (this was a single baton as there were none in stock) and ASP 26” last ordered 2nd November 2016 x 40 units – ordered from GMK

3. Standard Issue Handcuffs
a) Handcuffs were last ordered 20th February 2018 x20 units were purchased from TCH (UK) Ltd – via Northumbria Framework

4. X26 Taser
a) Taser X2 – Last ordered 30th March 2017 initial order was for roll out to CDSOU Officers, 101 were ordered – holsters & cartridges purchased thereafter – From Axon Public Safety UK Ltd via Home Office Framework

5. Anti-riot leg guards
a) None purchased for some time however there is a new intake of PSU Officers taking place, the approximate numbers on the course is 25.  Previously purchased from Michael Lupton Associates Ltd via a mini competition using the Home Office Framework.

The above is all of the information that we have been able to retrieve, please note the pricing of such items is commercially in confidence as the items are purchased via Framework Contracts owned by other Forces.

Reference: 9721-18
Date: 14/06/2018

I write in connection with you request for information received in this office on 15th May.  I note you seek the following:

 

How many Civilian Investigators are currently used by your force?

a)  41

 

Which units, squads and/or operations contain Civilian Investigators - and how many Civilian Investigators work in each? Ideally, please give a total of all investigators to identify the proportion of which are made up of Civilian Investigators.

 

Department                                                     No. of  PSI

C&J HIU Team A                                             1

C&J Major Crime Incidents                           1

C&J OCT                                                           7

C&J Organised Crime                                     1

C&J POLIT Team                                             2

C&J Prisoner Handling Team                        10

C&J SOMU                                                       3

CNY MIT Team                                                11

Crime & Operations                                       1

NPP Communities & Partnerships               2

Standards & Ethics                                         2

Grand Total                                                      41

 

How many Civilian Investigators have been used by your force over the past 5 years? Please break these down by month and year.

a)  Please see the attached document

 

Which external companies or agencies are currently contracted to provide or recruit Civilian Investigators to your force (i.e. G4S, Servoca, etc.)? How much are these contracts worth, how long do they run and when did they start?

a) None

How much money has been spent in total on Civilian Investigators for the last five years? Please break this down by month and year.

a) N/A

Some parts of this request may be easier to answer than others, and should this prove to be the case I would ask that you release available data as soon as possible rather than hold up the entire request.

 

Reference: 9719-18
Date: 13/06/2018

I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 14th May.  I note you seek the following:

 

Unless otherwise specified, I would like to receive the following information for the previous five years, with an annual breakdown. I also request a breakdown by specific offences (if available). In each case, please provide the maximum severity (eg speed, BAC), and/or details of the breakdown of any offence severity banding (eg speeding at 30mph over the limit) as applicable.

 

 

1) How many of your serving police officers were found to have committed what would ordinarily be considered to be traffic offences while on duty (eg caught on camera speeding or shot by a traffic policeman exceeding a speed limit)? Please exclude any cases where there was a bona fide blue light emergency, or where specific permission was otherwise given.

 

 

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018 to date

No of speeding offences dealt with in CTO (excluding exemptions)

3

12

7

10

5

Prosecution

 

1

 

1

 

Maximum speed recorded

36 in a 30

45 in a 30

37 in 30

40 in a 30

61 in a 50

 

i How many of the above were dealt with by means of internal disciplinary processes, rather than being charged or given a fixed penalty notice (FPN)? Please detail the internal sanctions used, eg restricted duties, dismissal, verbal warning etc.

a)  If a criminal offence is identified, then a criminal prosecution would be pursued.

ii) In how many cases above was no action taken?

a)  n/a

iii) In how many cases above was a prosecution mounted, or FPN issued?

a)  n/a

 

2) How many officers, both in work and outside of work (given separately), have been charged with motoring offences from your force?

a) 

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2

1

1

0

2

1

 

3) What guidance exists for officers who stop or reprimand colleagues for motoring offences, both in work and out of work, to prevent unduly lenient treatment?

a)  Road Traffic Act

4) What is the policy for police officers (not on blue lights) who are caught by speed cameras and ATS cameras?

a)  Once the driver is identified they are sent a notice of intended prosecution and dealt with as any other member of the public

5) What is the procedure for complaints to be raised concerning any unduly lenient treatment of police officers and staff, specifically with regard to motoring offences?

a)   Normal complaints procedure

6) What is your force's procedure for allowing the public to report officers for motoring offences, and what are the procedures for bringing charges or issuing FPNs in such circumstances?

a)   Would be the same as for reporting other members of the public

7) Do you use police vehicle in-cab footage, dash cams or telematics to monitor officers' driving, and to identify offending by officers?

a)  Police vehicles contain a black box recording device

8) What complaints, if any, has your force received concerning unduly lenient treatment of motoring offences by officers?

a)  No information held

9) How many accidents (minor, and separately KSI) have occurred with police officers driving in the course of their duties - excepting tactical stops and other deliberate operational maneuvers.

a)  We record injury accidents but only for all Emergency Vehicles on call we cannot differentiate. 

10) How many off duty police officers were involved in KSI collisions while driving off duty, and separately in non-emergency driving in work? How many of these were prosecuted?

a)  no information held

 

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9718-18
Date: 14/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 11th May.  I note you seek the following:

For the time period 01/01/2014 to 01/05/2018;
Please can you provide the number of arrests against individuals whose occupation is recorded as either ‘security employee’ or ‘Doorman’.
Please, can you break this data down for each calendar year and by offence recorded group (e.g. violence / arson / burglary etc), and I would also like to have as much information as possible about the individuals; such as age, gender, ethnicity, nationality and location. In cases where names can be disclosed, I would also be very grateful for this information.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that occupation is not regularly recorded  therefore we would have to search through all the arrests records, and for one  year alone there are over 14000 records that would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.

Reference: 9720-18
Date: 13/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 11th May 2018 in which was received by this office on 14th May 2018.  I note you seek access to the information detailed below;

For each of the following financial years 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18* please provide the following information:

1. Total number of disability hate crime cases recorded by your force.
2013/14 – 9 
2014/15 – 19 
2015/16 – 31 
2016/17 – 37 
2017/18 – 45 

2. For each yearly total in question 1, please state the total number of cases in which the/a victim was a) under 16, b) 16-17, c) 18-25, d) 26-40, e) 41-60 and f) over 60.

2013/14     
Under 16 – 1 
16 – 17 – 0 
18 – 25 – 5 
26 – 40 – 5 
41 – 60 – 7  
0ver 60 – 0 
Regina – 1
Unknown – 0  

2014/15
Under 16 – 0 
16 – 17 – 0 
18 – 25 – 2 
26 – 40 – 2 
41 – 60 – 2  
0ver 60 – 2 
Regina – 0
Unknown – 0 

2015/16
Under 16 – 4 
16 – 17 – 0 
18 – 25 – 6 
26 – 40 – 3 
41 – 60 – 12  
0ver 60 – 6 
Regina – 0
Unknown – 0 

2016/17
Under 16 – 8 
16 – 17 – 1 
18 – 25 – 3 
26 – 40 – 4 
41 – 60 – 15  
0ver 60 – 5
Regina – 1
Unknown – 0 

2017/18
Under 16 – 6 
16 – 17 – 4 
18 – 25 – 7 
26 – 40 – 12 
41 – 60 – 14  
0ver 60 – 1 
Regina – 1
Unknown – 0 

3. If recorded, please state the total number of disability hate crime cases carried out in/around school property (please include all educational establishments from early years to FE colleges).  
2013/14 – 0 
2014/15 – 0 
2015/16 – 1 
2016/17 – 3 
2017/18 – 0

4. Please state the total number of disability hate crime cases carried out in/around university property.
a) None

 

Reference: 9716-18
Date: 13/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 14th May.  I note you seek the following:
How many times have the Armed police be sent to incidents involving children where firearms have been drawn including baton rounds and TAZERS and after investigation, children have been in found to be in possession of Imitation Firearms shop brought firearms
Definition of  
For the purposes of this FOI A  child is defined as a person between 5 and 16yrs
Short Text:
I am seeking to find out how many times police are faced with  Imitation Firearms i n the hands of children.

Having made enquiries within the Force the answer for Cleveland Police is twice in the time specified

Reference: 9715-18
Date: 14/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 11th May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date and the confirmation of dates received on 14th May 2018.  Please accept our apologies for the late response your patience is appreciated. I note you seek access to the following information:

Since May 22nd 2017 (clarified as between 22.05.2017 to 11.05.2018) how many armed deployments have there been where it has turned out there was:

1. No terror threat
 (B) No person present with a firearm and or weapon that could cause really serious injury including suicide vest and/or explosives, and/or component parts of either (The definition of a Firearm for the purposes of this FOI firearm is defined as anything that is considered by police as a lethal option including baton round and TAZERS only to find out it was an imitation firearm).

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(2) National Security;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;
This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.
Sections 24, and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test. 
Overall harm for partial NCND
Whilst every effort should be made to release information under FOIA on this occasion we should be mindful that release under FOIA is a disclosure to the world, not just to the individual making the request and to confirm whether or not information is held pertinent to this request would reveal policing intelligence, about persons within the Cleveland Police force area, being involved in a Terrorist Act or terrorist-related offence. 

Public Interest Considerations
Section 24 – National Security
Factors favouring disclosure
The threat from national and international terrorism is ever present and the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and resources are distributed within an area of policing.  In the current financial climate of cuts and with the call for transparency of public spending disclosure would enable improved public debate.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Disclosure of operational information, no matter how generic, cannot be in the public interest if on-going or future operations or investigations to protect the security of the United Kingdom would be compromised.  Security measures are put in place to protect the community we serve.  As evidenced within the harm disclosure would have an impact on certain intelligence operations which could have implications for National Security.
Section 31 – Law Enforcement
Factors favouring disclosure
The release of this information would provide an insight into the Police Service and enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police in providing officers with an opportunity to work outside of their force’s jurisdiction in order to enhance their police knowledge and skills which assists in providing transparency in the way the Police Service carry out their day-to-day delivery of effective law enforcement.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
Specific information relating to terrorism is valuable intelligence which could be manipulated to hinder law enforcement capabilities by providing a valuable asset to individuals and/or organisations wishing to commit crime.  Vulnerabilities and capabilities would be highlighted.  Offender’s intent on committing criminal behaviour could create a mosaic of data and build up a picture of known terrorist incidents and identify areas of vulnerability or non-detection.
Overall balancing test 
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that any investigations into terrorism are being investigated effectively, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in these highly sensitive areas. 
Any information identifying the focus of specific policing activity relating to terrorism could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety, and have a negative impact on both National Security and law enforcement.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of National Security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.  It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.

 

Reference: 9714-18
Date: 16/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 11th May.  Please accept our apologies for the late response.  I note you seek the following:

1.       How many members of staff under your policing authority have been suspended from January 2016 onwards, what was the reason for their suspension and what was the outcome of related investigations?

Rank Date From Date To Reason for suspension Sanction
Police Officer 13/01/2016 13/06/2016 Inappropriate behaviour towards a colleague Written Warning
Police Officer 13/05/2016 02/11/2016 Complaint Officer is  pursuing a campaign of harassment against them Retired/Resigned
Police Officer 25/02/2016 07/12/2016 Inappropriate comments towards colleagues Management Advice/Written Warning
Police Officer 09/03/2016 16/08/2016 Inappropriate postings on social media site Dismissed
Police Staff 16/03/2016 04/10/2016 Inappropriate comments made towards a colleague Dismissed
Police Officer 13/04/2016 20/04/2016 Allegation of fraud No Case to Answer
Police Officer 13/04/2016 15/02/2018 Allegation of fraud No Case to Answer
Police Officer 21/04/2016 08/06/2016 Inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues Written Warning
Police Officer 02/08/2016 03/08/2016 Abuse of position Not Upheld
Police Officer 09/09/2016 05/05/2017 Allegation of assault Not Upheld
Steria Staff 06/10/2016 26/04/2017 Misuse of Force Computer Systems Dismissed
Police Officer 24/10/2016 04/01/2017 Inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues Final Written Warning
Police Staff 18/11/2016 25/11/2016 Allegation of historical sexual assault No Case to Answer
Police Staff 15/12/2016 26/04/2017 Misuse of Force Computer Systems Dismissed
Police Officer 10/11/2016 13/12/2017 Misuse of Force Computer Systems & disclosure of information Dismissed
Police Officer 10/11/2016 17/02/2017 Failing to challenge inappropriate behaviour Management Action
Police Officer 20/01/2017 27/04/2017 Allegation of inappropriate behaviour Dismissed
Police Staff 04/12/2017 Date Misuse of Force Computer Systems  Retired/Resigned

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any further information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 30(3) Investigations;
Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption which means the public interest must be considered.

Public Interest test - Considerations favouring disclosure.

Accountability: Disclosure could provide the investigating officers with additional information.
Public awareness: Disclosure of the information in relation to an on-going investigation may enhance the ability and professionalism of the force and individual officers.

Considerations favouring non-disclosure.
Exemption provisions
Public safety: By the inappropriate release of information, which could undermine any on-going investigations.

Balancing Test: whilst the public interest considerations favouring disclosure are noted in considering the arguments for and against release of the information requested, the balance in the public interest favours non-disclosure. Disclosure, at this moment in time other law enforcement may either be compromised or significantly weaken any on-going investigations and any future investigations.

Reference: 9713-18
Date: 03/07/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 11th May.  Please accept our apologies for the late response due to staffing issues.  I note you seek the following:

Within your constabulary, what is the highest speed (mph) recorded from 1st January 2017 up to and including May 2018.
a)  111mph in a 70mph zone in April 2018 this was an officer witnessed offence

Please break this down to include the make and model of the car caught speeding and also by any one detection method.
a)  BMW

For example – a Toyota Yaris was caught speeding at 71mph in a 60mph zone in November 2017

Within your constabulary, in this time period, what is the most common car make and model caught speeding? 

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that this information is not available in an accessible format there are approximately 16000 speeding offences that would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.

Reference: 9711-18
Date: 07/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 9th May.  I note you seek the following:

I would like to make a freedom of information request please covering the last three calendar years - 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Could you provide me with the following information.

The number of reports your force has received of cash machines/ATMs that have been tampered with.

Having made enquiries within the Force and there is no such offence as tampering with a cash machine.  However the analyst has defined it as criminal damage and there was only one crime of criminal damage in the last 3 calendar years with regards to cash machines.

Reference: 9710-18
Date: 07/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 9th May 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;

Please provide the following for the last 5 financial years  - with a year by year breakdown eg.  2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18

1. The total number of offences where a motor vehicle was stolen as a result of a burglary
a) Cleveland police class this as 2 in 1 and the records we hold only go back to 1st January 2016 so we are only able to provide data for 2016/17 and 2017/18 as shown below
2016/17 155 cars stolen as a result of burglary
2017/18 182 cars stolen as a result of burglary

2. The total number of offences where a motor vehicle was stolen as a result of fraud
3. The total number of offences where a motor vehicle was stolen by any other means (eg NOT burglary or fraud).  This would include ‘theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle’ and vehicles taken in a robbery or other crimes.
a) We have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve for questions 2 and 3. For the period 20/13/14 – 2017/18.

4. The total number of stolen motor vehicles that were returned to the owner
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having made enquiries regarding your request we have been advised that there are 3624 records, within the timescale of your request, that would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they contain the information to answer this question (number of stolen motor vehicles that were returned to the owner) and it is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
As a gesture of goodwill, outside of the Freedom of information Act, we have supplied information, to answer questions 1 – 3 of your request that was retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I hope that this is of help to you and note that it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

 

Reference: 9709-18
Date: 07/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 9th May 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;
1. Could you give me details of all fires in police vehicles (engines) in the past three years.
2. In the aforementioned cases could you give me make and model and age of the vehicle, and it's use within the force.
3. The cause of the fire - if determined.
We have made enquiries with our Fleet Management Department and they have advised that there have been no fires in Cleveland Police vehicles within the timescale of your request.
Reference: 9708-18
Date: 07/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 9th May 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;

1) The number of stolen pets (dogs, cats, horses, other small animals) OR crimes involving stolen pets in 2017 (1 January - 31 December).
a) 36
 
2) If recorded, the species and breed of animals stolen in 2017 (1 Jan - 31 Dec).
3) Please provide locations (where known) involving theft of the animal eg house/street/garden in 2017 (1 Jan - 31 Dec)

We have taken the definition of ‘pet’ to include dogs, cats, horses, other mammals, reptiles and rodents and have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve, that is the crime validation date, type of pet and the location it was stolen from.

Reference: 9707-18
Date: 07/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office n 9th May.  I note you seek the following:

This is a freedom of information request under the freedom of information act 2000. Can you please tell me, how many files regarding cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) Cleveland Police have sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for charging decisions in the last 5 years?

Having made enquires within the Force the answer to your request is none.

Reference: 9704-18
Date: 06/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 89th May.  I note you seek the following:

Please could you provide me with the following information under the Freedom of Information Act regarding General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)
• Total summary or estimate of expenditure to date to prepare your organisation for the incoming GDPR legislation
a) None, to date all GDPR work has been completed by staff in post or officers on short term secondment to the project team.
• Detail on this expenditure e.g. staff training, software, department policies, hiring
a)  None
• Projected spend or budget for managing GDPR within your department for the rest of the calendar year
a)  None expected as will continue to be managed by staff in post or on secondment.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9702-18
Date: 06/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 7th May 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;
I am writing to make a Freedom of Information request for dog theft data from 2015, 2016 and 2017.
Of the reported theft cases which involved dogs in 2015, 2016 and 2017:
1. How many led to arrests? Which cases?
a) We have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve in relation to reported theft of dogs.

2. What were the sentencing outcomes? 
a) Cleveland Police investigate crime and arrest perpetrators it is the Crown prosecution service that prosecute and HM Courts that determine guilt and hand down the appropriate sentence and therefore this information would be held by them.

4. How many cases remain unsolved or open?
a) We have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve in relation to reported theft of dogs.

3. How many /which led to custodial sentences, and how long were the sentences?
a) Cleveland Police investigate crime and arrest perpetrators it is the Crown prosecution service that prosecute and HM Courts that determine guilt and hand down the appropriate sentence and therefore this information would be held by them.

Reference: 9701-18
Date: 06/06/2018 I write in connection with a request for information received in this office on 7th May.  I note you seek the following:

How many reports of hate crime did your constabulary receive between the 29th of March, 2016 through to the 28th of March, 2017?
a) 668
How many of these ended with an arrest (or multiple arrests)?
a) 133 these are the crimes which has the arrested box ticked on the crime report.
How many of these led to a successful prosecution?
a)  It the duty  of Cleveland Police to identify, apprehend suspects, decisions regarding prosecutions is the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service and Convictions is that of HM Courts Service therefore Conviction data is held by HM Courts.
How many arrests for hate crime did your constabulary make between the 29th of March, 2017 through to the 28th of March, 2018?
a)  715
How many of these ended with an arrest (or multiple arrests)?
a)  126 these are the crimes which has the arrested box ticked on the crime report.
How many of these led to a successful prosecution?
a)  see above
When using the term hate crime I am referring to the CPS definition, which can be found here:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime

Having made enquiries above is all the information we have been able to retrieve. 

 

Reference: 9699-18
Date: 06/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 7th May 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;
Under the Freedom of Information Act I would like to request information on the number of acid attacks and attacks using ammonia or other noxious substances for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and this year 2018 to date.
Below is the number of recorded crimes for the offences of acid or other noxious substance attacks for 2014 – 2018 (to the date of your request).
2014 – 4
2015 – 7
2016 – 4
2017 – 5
2018 – 3
Reference: 9698-18
Date: 06/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 5th May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on 8th May 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

I would like to request a list of the instances between 01/02/2016 and 01/02/2018 where serving police officers have received injury to their knee whilst having the cell exit technique applied during Officer Safety Training.
 I would like to request a separate list of the instances between 01/02/2016 and 01/02/2018 where prisoners in police custody have received injury to their knee whilst having the cell exit technique applied during Officer Safety Training.
We have made enquiries within the force and have been advised by the Personal Safety Trainers that they believe that you are referring to the figure of four leg lock which has not been used in Cleveland for a number of years and certainly not in the last two. Their understanding is that use this technique was removed due to the high risk of injury.

Reference: 9694-18
Date: 05/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 4th May 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;
Please can you tell me how many incidents of drink spiking have been recorded in your area each year between 2005 and 2008?

We're trying to compare recent stats to 10 years ago.
We have made enquiries regarding the above request and must advise you that the information available is limited as it is held on a now archived system and the information provided is all that we have been able to retrieve.
2005 – 7 validated crimes, 2 of which are shown as detected in 2005
3 x 8/02 administering poison with intent to injure or annoy
2 x 88/05 administering a substance with intent
2 x 5/10 administering poison so as to endanger life
2006 – 1 validated crime, which was shown as detected 2007
1 x 5/10 administering poison so as to endanger life

Please note the information retrieved is based on the Home Office codes the analyst was advised would be relevant as there is no such offence.

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9693-18
Date: 05/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 4th May 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;
For each question below, please can you provide data for the last calendar year (2017) and the previous calendar year (2016).

For each question below, please include reported incidents of, both, attempted break-ins and burglaries, as well as successful break-ins and burglaries
 
1. How many domestic break-ins were there in your area? Please also provide information concerning where these break-ins took place (postcode / town), what time, day of the week and month they took place in
2. How many domestic break-ins took place in the following types of property – flat, terraced house, semi-detached house, detached house, and bungalow?
a) For the above two questions we have made enquiries within the force and the attached document contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve.  It should be noted that the analysts that deal with this data have advised that the data is broken down by Home Office code, district and month for the financial years 2016/17 and 2017/18 as this is how the information is recorded and held for the Home Office as that is how we record

4. What percentage of the domestic break-ins reported in your area resulted in an arrest?
a) Cleveland Police do not work in percentages.

3. How many domestic break-ins took place when none of the victims were in the property i.e. the house was unoccupied?
5. How many domestic break-ins took place in a property which had any of the following security systems in place: Alarm system, CCTV, smart home cameras, motion sensors?
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having made enquiries regarding questions 3 and 5 of your request we have been advised that there 10,859 recorded crimes of burglary and to identify if the information to answer questions 3 and 5 was recorded would require the manual retrieval and reading of each crime record/MO and it is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
As a gesture of goodwill, outside of the Freedom of information Act, we have supplied information, to answer the other questions, that was retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I hope that this is of help to you and note that it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

6. Of those domestic break-ins that took place in a property with a security system in place (see above), what percentage resulted in an arrest?
a) Cleveland Police do not work in percentages.

Please note that all statistical data supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact this office on 01642 306825 or 01642 306832.

 

Reference: 9692-18
Date: 19/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received by this office on 3rd May.  Please accept our apologies for the late response due to staffing issues.  I note you seek the following:
I wish to be told the financial amount paid out by force officers for the ‘test purchase’ of drugs for the following years:
:: 2017/18
:: 2016/17
:: 2015/16
If possible within the time and cost limits specified in the Act, could you also please provide a breakdown of the drugs transactions for the years detailed above, including the date of transaction, the type of drugs purchased, the weight of drugs purchased and the cost of each transaction.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon, Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act requires that I provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) state (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information relevant to your request as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement;

Section 23 is an absolute class-based exemption and therefore there is no requirement to conduct a harm or public interest test
Sections 31 is a prejudice based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test. 

Evidence of Harm:
Information, if held, would display police forces’ capability on a national level of undercover drugs operations which would severely impact the operational effectiveness of the tactics deployed.  It could further endanger the safety of officers involved in test purchasing of drugs.  Organised crime groups operating within the UK has significantly increased over the last few years; involvement in drugs activity being one of many criminal activities they engage in. Information, if held, could give those OCGs significant intelligence to allow them to avoid detection in certain areas, and alert them to police activities within their areas of operation.  In addition, it would also give them an indication of where police activity is concentrated, and conversely where it is not, allowing them to exploit areas of vulnerability to further their criminal activities.

S.31(3) Factors favouring confirmation or denial
To confirm or deny the amounts spent on test purchases of drugs would make members of the public more aware that police forces are proactively tackling the on-going illegal activities of drug dealers in the UK.  Improved public awareness may lead to more intelligence being submitted to police about drug activities in their areas, potentially leading to more arrests and convictions. This would also give more confidence to the public that action is being taken and demonstrate how public money is being spent in this way.

S.31(3) Factors favouring neither confirming or denying
To confirm or deny that the requested information is held could compromise law enforcement tactics, which would hinder individual police forces’ abilities to prevent and detect drug crime.  Where some forces may hold information, and others do not, may indicate to those involved in criminal drugs activities, including organised crime groups, where this specific police tactic is deployed.  This would lead to those involved in such crimes being able to gain knowledge enabling them to target specific locations, or alternatively, avoid locations where these tactics are used. 

Balance Test
Whilst there is an inherent public interest in knowing how police forces tackle drug crime, to confirm or deny amounts paid for test purchases of drugs over a period of 3 years would indicate levels of undercover police activity at force levels.  This would in turn allow individuals or OCGs to exploit what may be considered as less active or resourced areas by assessing patterns of police activity over time and taking action to avoid detection.  Whilst there is a public interest in transparency of policing, and in this case, the use of public money in this way, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and the safety of police officers undertaking these activities.  It is therefore our opinion that for these issues, the balancing test for confirming or denying whether forces hold this information, is not upheld.

This should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that meets the request does or does not exist.

Reference: 9688-18
Date: 15/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 3rd May.  Please accept our apologies for the late response.  I note you seek the following:

A record of all acid attacks recorded by your force during the following calendar years:
a) 2016
b) 2017
c) 2018 to date (May 3 or whichever date is closest)
Please use calendar years but failing that financial years would be fine - please state which type of year you respond with.
By 'acid attack' I mean any kind of crime in which the perpetrator(s) threw acid or a corrosive substance at the victim(s) in order to harm them.
For each record, please provide:
i) the local authority of community safety partnership in which it took place
ii) the year
iii) the crime as recorded by the police (e.g. assault occasioning actual bodily harm)
iv) the outcome of the crime (e.g. charged)

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9686-18
Date: 01/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 3rd May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

Under the freedom of Information Act – I was hoping to obtain the following information:
Name(s) of person, telephone number and email address of person responsible for managing CCTV and the Data. Who is responsible for purchasing CCTV and Data Storage of CCTV.
I also seek answers to the following questions:
How many cameras do you manage today? Is that growing?
How do you store and manage your video today? (Network Video Recorders? Enterprise Storage?) Has your company ever lost video, or experienced poor-quality playback of video files?
How critical is video to your company? What is the impact of not being able to access video or record video?
When was the last time you refreshed your surveillance storage hardware?
Do you have an upgrade/refresh date? If so when?
What is your budget for the refresh?

We have made enquiries within the force and can advise you that Cleveland Police do not have CCTV cameras we use footage obtained from the cameras installed by the local councils so our response, on this occasion, must be no information held.

Reference: 9685-18
Date: 04/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 3rd May 2018 which was received in this office on that date.  I note you seek the following information:

I am writing to make a request for all the information to which I am entitled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
1. How many breaches of non-molestation orders have been recorded by your force in each of the following financial years 2015/16; 2016/17; 2017/18
For each year please provide a breakdown of the outcomes i.e. No further action, charges, summons, etc etc
2. How many breaches of occupation orders have been recorded by your force in each of the following financial years 2015/16; 2016/17; 2017/18
For each year please provide a breakdown of the outcomes i.e. No further action, charges, summons, etc etc
3. How many breaches of restraining orders have been recorded by your force in each of the following financial years 2015/16; 2016/17; 2017/18
For each year please provide a breakdown of the outcomes i.e. No further action, charges, summons, etc etc
We have attached a document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve in relation to questions 1 and 3.  Please note we are unable to provide data for question 2 as Breach of Occupation Orders are not recordable crimes.

4. How many DVPNs were authorised by your force in each of the following financial years 2015/16; 2016/17; 2017/18.
For each year please provide a breakdown of the outcomes.
a) Below is all of the information we have been able to obtain from the department that deals with this subject matter. Information regarding outcomes is not required by the Home Office and therefore is not recorded.
2015/16 – 87 
2016-17 – 27  
2017-18 – 29 
5. How many applications for DVPOs were made to your force and their respective outcome at court in each of the following financial years 2015/16; 2016/17; 2017/18.
For each year please provide a breakdown of the outcomes.
a) Below is all of the information we have been able to obtain from the department that deals with this subject matter. Information regarding outcomes is not required by the Home Office and therefore is not recorded.
2015/16 – 83 (Please Note one of these applications was not progressed) 
2016-17 – 33  
2017-18 – 32

Reference: 9684-18
Date: 06/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 2nd May 2018 in which was received by this office on 3rd May 2018.  I note you seek access to the below information.

1a) The total number of recorded offences for indecent images (still or moving) of children, for the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017
a) 194
1b) The total number of recorded offences for indecent images (still or moving) of children, for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018
a) 258

2a) The breakdown of possession, distribution and any other linked indecent image (still or moving) of children offence for the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017
a)   086/10 Possession of indecent photo of child - 69
      086/15 Possessing indecent images of children - 1

2b) The breakdown of possession, distribution and any other linked indecent image (still or moving) of children offence for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018
a)  086/10 Possession of indecent photo of child - 61
     086/15 Possessing indecent images of children – 5

2c) The breakdown of possession, distribution and any other linked indecent image (still or moving) of children offence for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018, with the breakdown of perpetrators age (by individual age where possible), gender and occupation.
a)
086/10 Possession of indecent photo of child 
25 male  1
27 male  1
28 male  1
41 male  1
45 male  1
60 male  1
75 male  1
N/A  26
On-going 28
086/15 Possessing indecent images of children 
25 male  1
N/A  1
On-going 3

If the request exceeds the Freedom of Information time limit, please focus on 2a and 2b

3a) The breakdown of taking indecent images (still or moving) of children for the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017
a)   086/02 Take or make indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children – 124

3b) The breakdown of taking indecent images (still or moving) of children for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018
a)  086/02 Take or make indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children – 192

3c) The breakdown of taking indecent images (still or moving) of children for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018 with the breakdown of perpetrators age (by individual age where possible), gender and occupation.
a)
086/02 Take or make indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children 
15 male  1
17 male  1
27 male  1
31 male  1
34 male  2
35 male  1
36 male  1
37 male  2
39 male  1
44 male  1
46 male  1
51 male  1
52 male  1
53 male  1
54 male  1
55 male  1
56 male  1
62 male  2
63 male  1
67 male  1
73 male  1
N/A  115
On-going 53

If the request exceeds the Freedom of Information time limit, please focus on 3a and 3b

We have made enquiries and above is all the information that we have been able to retrieve.  The analysts that provided the data and they have advised that they have used the HO classes which they believe to be applicable to this request.
They have provided information for the financial years 2016/17 and 2017/18. For every crime where there is a positive outcome and there is a named offender, the age and gender of that person is included but not occupation, as the occupation field is not mandatory and cannot be relied upon. 

 

 

Reference: 9683-18
Date: 01/06/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 2nd May 2018 in which was received by this office on 3rd may 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;

All the cases dealt with (or still being dealt with) by your Professional Standards Department of domestic abuse allegedly perpetrated by police officers, PCSOs and other police staff employed by your own force. I would like this information for the last three years up to and including the present day (2nd May), broken down by year.

For each case please tell me:
1. The type/category e.g. conduct, complaint
2. The type of employee e.g. officer, PCSO, other staff
3. The specific behaviour or offences alleged (please ignore 3 if you can't give this information)
4. The outcome e.g. no case to answer/the type of discipline or sanction (e.g. dismissed without notice, management advice etc)/the outcome of criminal proceedings (e.g. convicted, trial ongoing)
5. Whether the case was referred to the IOPC (formerly the IPCC)

We have made enquires within the force and have attached a document that provides all of the information we have been able to retrieve

Reference: 9682-18
Date: 01/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 2nd may I note you seek the following:

Q1. Where data is available for each of the following periods, please state how many cases were investigated within your authority related to the “Theft Act 1968: Section 13 (for abstraction of electricity)”:
• 2015/2016 - 22
• 2016/2017 - 25
• 2017/2018 – 26

Q2. If data is available, please also state how many related to abstraction of electricity for suspected use in cultivation or manufacture of illegal drugs for the timeframes outlined above.
• 2015/2016 - 5
• 2016/2017 - 4
• 2017/2018 – 3

Q3. If data is available, please state the number of cases that related to abstraction of electricity for suspected use in cultivation or manufacture of illegal drugs that were investigated in rented properties (i.e. not owner-occupied premises) for the timeframes outlined above.
a)  no information held

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve in relation to Recorded Crimes for abstract electricity.

Reference: 9681-18
Date: 01/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 2nd May.  I note you seek the following:

1. How many cases of racist behaviour, allegedly committed by police officers, PCSOs or other police employees employed by your own force, have been dealt with (or are still being dealt with) by your Professional Standards Department, year on year over the past 6 years up to and including the present day.
2. A brief description of the specific discriminatory behaviour in each case, e.g. quotations of the specific language allegedly used, or a description of other alleged discriminatory behaviour
3. The outcome of each case, e.g. no case to answer, or the type of sanction (e.g. dismissal without notice, forced resignation, management advice, final written warning, etc.), or criminal proceedings, etc.
4. Whether each case was reported to the IOPC (formerly known as the IPCC)

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

01/01/2012 - 31/12/2012 Summary of Complaint Outcome IPCC Referral
  Officer made sexist, racist and homophobic comments whilst at work. Written Warning No
  Arrested for Racially Aggravated Section 5 Public Order Retired/Resigned Yes
  He complains that Officers were racially abusive towards him. No case to answer NO
  He complains the actions of the officers were discriminatory because of his race. No case to answer NO
  He complains that actions of officers were racially motivated. No case to answer NO
01/01/2013 - 31/12/2013 Summary of Complaint Outcome IPCC Referral
  He complains that he was treated less favourably due to his race. No Case to Answer Yes
  The officer discriminated against him. No Case to Answer No
  The officer made a racist remark about his ex-wife. Withdrawn No
  He complains that an Officer racially discriminated against him. Management Action Yes
  She complains that an Officer did not believe her English name because she is of Chinese appearance. No Action No
  He complains that an Officer swore at him and used racist words such as 'black arsehole'. No Action No
  He complains that an Officer issued him with a fixed penalty ticket but allowed an Asian female to drive away and therefore discriminated against him. No Case to Answer No
01/01/2014 - 31/12/2014 Summary of Complaint Outcome IPCC Referral
  He complains that he has been subject of oppressive conduct and effectively discriminated against because of the colour of his skin. No Case to Answer No
  He has reported various incident to the Police in respect of harassment on the part of his ex, he says the Police always take her side and if he "was a white male Stockton Police would have helped." No Case to Answer No
  He complains that the Officer was racist and bigoted (due to the comments attributed to him). No Case to Answer No
  They complain that Cleveland Police have failed to undertake a investigation correctly due to the fact that the victim was a black man. Disapplication  No
01/01/2015 - 31/12/2015 Summary of Complaint Outcome IPCC Referral
  He complains that a female PCSO referred to him as a "black c***".  Disapplication  No
  He complains that he feels he has been treat differently because of his skin colour. No Action No
  They complain that an Officer has singled him out because of the colour of his skin without knowing full facts. Management Action No
  He stated that officers have called him a 'zulu'. No Action No
  He complains that a custody officer has been racist towards him whilst in custody. No Action No
  She complains that an officer called her a 'black whore' under his breath. No Case to Answer Yes
  It has been reported through supervision that that a staff member made a inappropriate comment which another staff member that the comment was directed at them. Written Warning No
  Allegations of bullying and racist behaviour No Case to Answer No
  Allegations of racism No Case to Answer No
01/01/2016 - 31/12/2016 Summary of Complaint Outcome IPCC Referral
  He complains that an officer's twitter account has racist, sexist and offensive comments. Dismissed Yes
  Officers attending a incident sided with othe rparty which complainant believes was a racist act.    No Action No
  Complainant states that when being booked into custody he was racially discriminated against. No Action No
  Alleged made discriminatory comments against another officer No Action Yes
  Alleged that a PCSO made the following comments to a male suspected of a theft:
"   "You're in my country"
"   "Don't come to my country and steal"
"   "I pay taxes, you don't"
"   "What would happen to you in Syria if you did this" Dismissed Yes
  Officer made a allegation claiming that another officer was offensive towards them and made a comment of a racist nature Written Warning Yes
   Officer used the term "chinky boo boo" Written Warning Yes
01/01/2017 - 04/12/2017 Summary of Complaint Outcome IPCC Referral
  He complains that he feels the poor level of service was the result of his ethnicity. No Action No
  He complains that he had to attend a a ssessment centre even though he was fasting as it was Ramadan.   Not Upheld No
  He complains that him and his family were only arrested on a discrimination basis. Live No
  It is alleged that at an as yet undetermined date between January 2011 and November 2013 whilst on duty at an unknown place and time you remarked to a colleague, words to the effect that you "would drive past a mosque and shoot pakis." No Case to Answer No
  Officer made a number of claims against Cleveland Police of direct discrimination, victimisation and harassment based on his race.  Live Yes
  Allegations made by officer that he is being discriminated over his ethnicity. No Case to Answer Yes
01/01/2018 - 02/05/2018 Summary of Complaint Outcome IPCC Referral
    That her parents have been singled out as part of this complaint of harassment, possible because of their Indian origin. Live No

 

Reference: 9680-18
Date: 15/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 1st May.  Please accept our apologies for the late response.   I note you seek the following:

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 please can I request the following information?
The number of incidents police have been called to at schools across Cleveland for the following
periods:
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19 to date
Please can the information include the school location, the date of the incident and details such as if a weapon was involved?
Clarification - Is it possible to get the information relating to crimes with the location identifier as a school please?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised we would need a complete list of each schools then each incident would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  However if you wish to refine your request for the number of crimes at schools we can revisit this request.

Reference: 9679-18
Date: 31/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information that was received in this office on 1st May and also your email on 30th May.   I note you seek the following:

During the period of 1 January 2015 to 1 January 2018, how many Rape offences (HOCR: 19C and 19F) were:
a) reclassified as Perverting the Course of Justice offences (HOCR: 79) or;
b) cancelled and a new crime report of Perverting the Course of Justice (HOCR: 79) was raised to replace the original rape offence recorded?
[HOCR = Home Office Counting Rule]
Where possible, please provide details of the incident (redacting any identifying information); the gender and age of the individual concerned; the outcome of each incident (e.g. no action/investigation/prosecution) and the length of any potential sentence, where known.
If you can only answer part of the request, please provide partial answers. And if you anticipate any problems with providing the information requested or require clarification, please let me know at the earliest possible stage.

Having made enquiries with in the Force the answer is none.   With regards to your email of 30th May for future reference  when calculating the 20 days day 1 is the day after receipt of the request as stated in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 Section 10(1)(1) of promptly and in any event not later that the twentieth working day following the date of receipt.

Reference: 9678-18
Date: 30/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 30th April 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the below information but should point out that information collected in relation to crime is recorded and held by financial year as that is how is it requested by the Home Office. 

1) Please could you provide me with figures for the number of crimes reported to your police force which were not subsequently investigated for each of the following years; 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017?
 ‘Not subsequently investigated’ can mean crimes which were reported to the police and either ‘screened out’ for further investigation in line with the Force’s Crime Assessment Principles, or where a decision is taken to not investigate a crime or follow-up after an initial assessment.
a) Please could you break this data down into types of crime listed below, so that it shows the figures for the following Offence Groups, Sub-Groups or Offences as per the Home Office Offense Classification Index:
 
1) All Crime
2) Violence against the person
a) Homicide
b) Violence with injury
c)  Violence without injury
3) Sexual Offences
a) Rape
b) Others sexual offences
4) Robbery
a) Robbery of personal Property
b) Robbery of Business Property
5) Burglary
a) Burglary – residential
b) Burglary – business and community
6) Vehicle Offences
a) Aggravated Vehicle taking
b) Interfering with motor vehicle
c)  Theft from motor vehicles
d) Theft or Taking of Motor vehicle
7) Theft
a) Bicycle theft
b) Other theft
c)  Shoplifting
d) Theft from person
 8) Arson and Criminal Damage
a) Arson
b) Criminal damage
9) Drug offences
a) Drag trafficking
b) Possession of Drugs
10   Possession of Weapons
a)       Other firearm offenses
b)      Other knife offences
c)       Possession of article blade or point
d)      Possession firearm
e)      Possession firearm with intent
f) Possession other weapons
11) Public Order offences
a) Other state offence or public order
b) Public fear alarm or distress
c)  Racist and religious aggravated public fear alarm distress
d) Violent disorder
2)      For each of these Offence Groups, Sub-Groups or Offences could you provide information on how many crimes were reported to your police force and investigated beyond the initial screening process?
3)      Please can you provide me with a copy of the assessment criteria used by your police force to determine whether a reported crime should be investigated further?
I recognise that this may overlap with material that you publish online but please note that I am asking for a level of detail which goes beyond this, so there is no argument that the material is already publicly accessible.
We have attached an XLS document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve in relation to your request.

Reference: 9677-18
Date: 30/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 1st May 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you.

Please could you provide costs charged to football clubs for football-related costs only, for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 seasons?  Please split costs by club and by season. I would be grateful if you could provide this in an .xls format, to this email address. Please provide for the following clubs:

Middlesbrough
15/16 - £78,076.72
16/17 - £177,120.24
Hartlepool United
15/16 - £8,964.69
16/17 - £27,481.53

Reference: 9676-18
Date: 30/05/2018 I write in response to your request for information received in this office on 1st May.  I note you seek the following:
Could you please detail the number of corrosive substances you seized in or near schools, broken down by primary or secondary school?
(if you are unable to qualify the word "near" please provide data for seizures in schools only)
Please provide figures for the past four calendar years, broken down by year.
If possible, please provide a breakdown of the ages of the person found to be carrying the corrosive substance. Eg, xx number of 15 year olds. xx number of 17 year olds etc.

Having made enquires within the Force and in searching our data base for “chemicals” and checking to see if any are corrosive and are pertinent to your request the answer is no information is held.

Reference: 9675-18
Date: 01/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received by this office on 30th April.  I note you seek the following:

I would like to know the number of thefts reported in hospitals in your area, including personal items stolen from patients and hospital property stolen. And if possible I would also like to know how many reports turned into criminal cases or convictions.

If possible can I have this information for the period between April 2016 and April 2018 on a month by month basis, and broken down into which hospital and what was stolen. I would also like this in a PDF format.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised to ascertain thefts from patients at a hospital each crime report would need to be retrieved and manually read to see if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.

However as a gesture of goodwill outside of the act have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve with the location field in the MO with “hospital” with a CR5 Theft.  This includes thefts of and from motor vehicles.  Please note this does NOT include any property stolen by means of burglary and we cannot state whether it was from a patient or the hospital for the above reasons.

 

Reference: 9674-18
Date: 30/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 30th April.  I note you seek the following:

1. Which company(s) holds the contract to supply your current police custody medical services.
a) Care and Custody (Health) Ltd
2. Please state the full name of your Authority
a)  Police and Crime Commissioner for Cleveland
3. Please state if this service was procured through a framework agreement with other Public Authorities (if so please provide the names of the other Authorities). If yes, please also state which Authority holds the contract.
a) N/A
4. Please state the contract start date and end date of your current contract.
a)  01/07/17 – 30/06/2020 option to extend to 30/06/2022
5. What is the expected total value of the contract?
a)  £4,065,620 with extension
6. Are there provisions for contract extensions (including how many years and the extension terms). If yes, please state if the contract extension been awarded
a)  2 x 12 months

Having made enquiries within the Force the above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9672-18
Date: 19/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 30th April.  Please accept our apologies for the late response due to staffing issues.  I note you seek the following:

1. What period do your answers relate to?
a)   April 2017 – April 2018
2. How many dogs were seized by your force as prohibited breeds during the last available 12 month period?
a)  9
3. How many dogs were seized by your force as dangerous dogs during the last available 12 month period?
a)  7
If it is not possible to differentiate whether dogs were seized on suspicion of being dangerous or as a prohibited breed, please give the total figure.
4. Of those dogs:
a. How many dogs were disclaimed and destroyed without a court order?
i)   5
b. How many were returned as not being a prohibited breed?
ii)  4
c. How many applications were brought by your force for a destruction order under section 4B of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991?
iii)  4
d. How many prosecutions were brought for an offence connected with a prohibited dog under s1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991?
iv)  1
e. How many dogs were returned to their owners/keepers under the interim exemption scheme which applies to prohibited dogs?
v)  2

Having made enquiries within the Force above I all the information we have been able to retrieve.

 

Reference: 9671-18
Date: 30/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 30th April 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the below information. 

For the last available year, could you please state how many allegations of sexual crime (harassment, voyeurism, assault, etc.) which took place in unisex changing facilities or toilets have been reported to your force?
We have made enquiries with the analysts who deal with this type of data and they have advised that there is no such location as ‘changing room’ within the search facility on police systems, however they have carried out a search using ‘public toilet’ and ‘unisex’ and there were no results for the financial year 2017/18

Reference: 9670-18
Date: 30/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 30th April.  I note you seek the following:

Could you please state how many sexual harm prevention orders, sexual risk orders, or criminal behaviour orders have been made in your force area which prohibit an individual from entering unisex changing facilities or toilets.

Having made enquires within the Force the answer is 0.  Such a prohibition is not included on such orders as.

Reference: 9668-18
Date: 30/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 29th April which was received by Cleveland Police on 30th April 2018.  I note you seek access to the below information. 

I'd like to request data on hate crimes in your county, specifically religious or racial hate crimes (we are interested in anti-Muslim incidents). I would like to know crime type, outcome, date, district, and the victim identity (race, gender, age if possible) from January 2015 until the most recent data available.
We have attached an XLS document that contains all of the information we have been able to retrieve but must advise you that the analysts have advised us that they have only used hate crime against religion not race as they are two different strands; Anti-Muslim crimes are picked up under the religion/faith indicator. We have also included all faith crimes, not just Muslim/Islam hate. 

Reference: 9666-18
Date: 01/06/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 30th April.  I note you seek the following:

1.            How many arrests have your police force made for the offences of supplying controlled drugs or possession with intent to supply controlled drugs in the last year (2017 calendar year) for young persons aged sixteen or under?
a)  5

2.            Please provide if possible the figures for each age group i.e. ten, eleven, twelve etc and also broken down by gender for each of the two offences, breaking the alleged offences down by Class A and Class B drugs.
a)  All males aged 16
Possession with intent to supply:
 Class A -Other x 2, Class A – Crack cocaine and Class A – Cocaine
Supply controlled drug
Concerned in the supply of Ecstacy A Class “A” Drug

3.            For those children who were arrested AND were aged 13 or under please provide specific details on the charge they were arrested on and the exact type and class of drug they were alleged to have been involved with.
a) 0

Having made enquires within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9665-18
Date: 29/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 27th April.  I note you seek the following:

I would like to submit a request for the figures relating to the number of hate crimes recorded by Cleveland Police from 1 Jan 2013 - 31 Dec 2017.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have retrieved.

Reference: 9664-18
Date: 29/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 27th April which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you, please note that the analysts who deal with this type of data have advised
The data provided has been retrieved using the location of ‘school’
That the data provided relates to crimes not incidents
They are unable to differentiate between primary and secondary schools,
The information provided relates to a school and may include any part of the school building including the school field, car park etc.

1) The number of violent incidents in primary and secondary schools reported to your force during the last five full financial year years.
2013/14 – 87 
2014/15 – 130 
2015/16 – 172 
2016/17 – 229
2017/18 – 273  
2) The number of drugs offences in primary and secondary schools reported to your force during the last five full financial year years.
2013/14 – 8 
2014/15 – 10 
2015/16 – 8 
2016/17 – 8 
2017/18 – 12 
3) The number of sexual offences in primary and secondary schools reported to your force during the last five full financial year years
2013/14 – 0 
2014/15 – 6 
2015/16 – 22 
2016/17 – 11 
2017/18 – 29 
4) The number of pupils found with a weapon at primary and secondary schools during the last five full financial year years
2013/14 – 1 
2014/15 – 11 
2015/16 – 3 
2016/17 – 1 
2017/18 – 4 

Reference: 9662-18
Date: 29/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 27th April.  I note you seek the following:

Please can you tell me how many police officers, including police community support officers, were assaulted at work in 2015, 2016 and 2017?
a)  Physically assaulted by a person figures (Officers, Specials and PCSO’s) from injury on duty forms are as follows:
2017 – 50
2016 – 51
2015 – 80
• Of these incidents please can you tell me how many led to prosecutions/court action?
a)  The below figures are people arrested for who were either charged or summonsed for:
 Assault a constable in the execution of his /her duty (recordable)
2017 – 48
2016 – 50
2015 – 31
• How many were dealt with through restorative justice programmes?
a)   Unfortunately we are in the process of recruiting for the Police RJ co-ordinator therefore we are unable to provide this data.
• Of those dealt with through restorative just programmes how many were successful i.e. led to no further action being taken?
a)  n/a

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9661-18
Date: 29/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office n 27th April.  I note you seek the following information:

Section 107 of the Digital Economy Act, which received royal assent on 27 April 2017, grants police forces and the National Crime Agency the right to apply to the courts to restrict or prevent the use of communications devices in connection with drug dealing offences.
Please provide:
The number of applications made for drug dealing telecommunications restriction orders between 27 April 2017 and 26 April 2018.
The number of applications for drug dealing telecommunications restriction orders which were granted between 27 April 2017 and 26 April 2018.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;

Sections 23 is an absolute exemptions, which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by any release.  In addition there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.
Sections 31(3) being a prejudiced based qualified exemptions, there is a requirement for us to evidence harm confirming or denying information is held and also consider the public interest.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the question exists, would enable the public to see where public funds are being spent. Better public awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the question exists, law enforcement tactics could be compromised which could hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime could be committed and individuals placed at risk.

Balance test - The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so could undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of national security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any other information relevant to your request exists is not made out.  None of the above can be viewed as an inference that any other information does or does not exist.

Reference: 9660-18
Date: 29/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 27th April.  I note you seek the following information:

1. The number of recorded crimes for Home Office notifiable offence of 825/06 Tampering with Motor Vehicles in your area in the following years
a)            2015 - 2
b)            2016 - 1
c)            2017 – 5
2. How many of those crimes specifically relate to the altering of the vehicle’s mileage?
a)  None
3. Of those relating to the altering of a vehicle’s mileage, how many of those were charged?
a)  N/A

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9569-18
Date: 30/04/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 29th March.  I note you seek the following:

1. How many motorists in your force area were charged with driving under the influence of drugs in 2015, 2016, 2017 and so far in 2018 (Jan – March). Please provide a breakdown for each year.
a)  Numbers of people arrested and charged for Drive a vehicle whilst unfit through drugs
2018 – 91
2017 – 198
2016 – 167
2015 – 41

2. Can you please provide a breakdown of the different substances/drugs that motorists were caught using whilst driving in the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and so far in 2018 (Jan – March). Please provide a breakdown for each year.
a)  We do not record this information

3. If possible, please further categorise these for type of drugs, including illegal, prescription or over the counter medication.
a) n/a

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9658-18
Date: 24/05/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 26th April 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;

I would like to know how many accidents have been reported in the last three years (Jan 1, 2016 - April 26 this year) - on the A19 (from Craythorne to Wynyard)

Collision Severity/Road Type Serious Slight Grand Total
Dual Carriageway  8 32 40
Roundabout   1 5 6
Slip Road   4 9 13
Grand Total   13 46 59


If you could also provide information on the type of accident and what the outcomes where.
If there were any arrests I'd also like that included.
With regards to the above two questions we would rely upon the following;

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request we have been advised to provide details of arrests and/or outcomes we would need to locate all arrests for road traffic offences and then identify any relevant to your request, this would require that the analysts search through all the identified arrest records to identify those that relate to accidents/collisions and then to identify if the location is recorded within the record.  It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
As a gesture of goodwill, outside of the Freedom of information Act, we have supplied information, for question 1 of your request, retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I hope that this is of help to you and note that it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

Reference: 9657-18
Date: 24/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 26th April 2018 which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:
Please provide estimates (amended on 30th April 2018 to information held) of (a) the number of motorists who have paid recovery and storage charges to retrieve their stolen vehicles, and (b) the amount of money motorists have paid in recovery and storage charges to retrieve their stolen vehicles, overseen by your police force in each year since the current statutory charges were set in 2008?

We have made enquiries within the Force and below is all of the information that the department that holds this information have been able to retrieve.  Please note our records are only from 2009.
Year  No. of Recoveries Removal Net.       Storage Net.     Total Net.      
2017       362           £59,550.00           £21,030.00       £80,580.00
2016       357           £57,440.00           £19,790.00       £77,230.00
2015       89            £14,270.00           £5,630.00         £19,900.00
2014       166           £25,550.00           £12,700.00       £38,250.00
2013       343           £55,575.00           £20,190.00       £75,765.00
2012       302          £54,660.00           £27,430.00       £82,090.00
2011       359           £61,360.00           £28,000.00       £89,360.00
2010       382           £65,700.00           £25,960.00       £91,660.00
2009       152           £26,050.00           £16,575.00       £42,625.00

Reference: 9566 - 18
Date: 24/07/2018 I write in response to your request for information received in this office on 26th April.  Please accept our apologies for the late response due to staffing issues.  I note you seek the following:

Could you please tell me for each of the financial years how much did the force spend on kennelling potential dangerous or banned dogs?

2012/13 - £15,057.69
2013/14 - £26,664.03
20014/15 - £46,117.02
2015/16 - £41,500.37
2016/17 - £33,477.37

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.


 

Reference: 9651- 18
Date: 24/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 25th April which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:

I request the number of reported robberies of food delivery drivers - including but not limited to
Deliveroo and takeaway pizza drivers - driving any vehicle in the calendar years:
2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 so far.
I request to know if the victims reported the food they were carrying stolen as well.
I also request the names of defendants involved in any successful convictions.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that the occupation field is not mandatory, we do have deliveryman but that would bring all delivery drivers not just food delivery and the aggrieved would most probably be the company they work for.  Therefore we would have to look through all the recorded crimes for theft from person, all other theft and we cannot discount theft from motor vehicle offences these would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.

Reference: 9650-18
Date: 24/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 25th April which was received by Cleveland Police on that date.  I note you seek access to the following information:
1) Does your force record thefts of “Asian Gold” under a specific descriptor, or in such a way that specific data on the thefts of Asian Gold can be extracted from your records.
2) If so, could you provide us with figures for:
a) The number of Asian Gold thefts
b) The total estimated value of Asian Gold thefts for the 12 months up to and including March 2018.
3) Assuming the retrieval of the relevant data falls within the FOI request cost restrictions, could you
also provide us with the same figures for the previous 4 years: i.e. the 12 months up to and including
March 2017, March 2016, March 2015 and March 2014.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that we do not have a specific descriptor that so we could search for Asian Gold we would have to use “Asian” or “gold” which would bring back any crime using either of those words and then those crimes would need to be read manually to see if  they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.

Reference: 9648-18
Date: 23/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 24th April.  I note you seek the following:

• Figures for theft of vehicles by year for the last five years
a) Recorded crimes (including aggravated vehicle taking)
2017/18 - 829
2016/17 - 752
2015/16 - 765
2014/15 - 630
2013/14 - 637
• Figures for theft of vehicles by year for the last five years where ‘relay’ car hack (where criminals use radio transmitters to capture the signal from the car’s fob to open and start the vehicle) was the method of theft
a)  No information held we do not record this data.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9649-18
Date: 24/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 24th April.  I note you seek the following:

I would like to make a freedom of information request concerning the operation of Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme; a piece of Home Office policy I am researching as a legal academic etc.
Please could you supply me with a copy, redacted as is necessary, of any report, review or memoranda, or any part of a larger document of that type, that has been both a) produced internally within your force and b) which evaluates the operation of the Scheme in your force area in any way, since the Scheme became a nationally operated policy in March 2014?

Having made enquiries within the Force the Department who deal with this haven’t done analysis for the period the scheme has been in place but we have produced some analysis for 2017.  We have attached a document with the results. As the above tables show the result of non-disclosure is notable regarding the perpetrator, in the fact that a higher proportion of perpetrators proceed to offend against different victims.  Above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9646-18
Date: 22/05/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 23rd April 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;

The number of reported thefts from motor vehicles that are tradespersons Tools. Eg Van tool theft
From Jan 1, 2018 until April 1, 2018
And Jan 1st 2017 - 31st Dec 17
Of those crimes do you a figure of the value of tools
A) recovered from operations
B) reported stolen
And also how many arrests were made in relation to the above thefts.

We have made enquiries within the force and have been advice that the specific information requested is not held in an easily retrievable format and therefore we would rely upon the following exemption.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having made enquiries regarding your request we have been advised that in 2017/18 (all information of this nature is recorded and held by financial year) there are 2627 recorded ‘Theft from Vehicle’ crimes each of which would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they were a ‘van’ and that the items stolen where ‘Tools’, there is no search facility for ‘tools’ each specific item (hammer, screwdriver, wrench, drill etc.) And additionally there were a total of 199 arrests each of which would require the manual retrieval of the custody record to identify what items were stolen, if recorded. It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.


Please also note that we do not routinely record the value of items stolen as often when being reported this information is either not requested or not forthcoming from the reporting person.

Reference: 9645-18
Date: 22/05/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 22nd April 2018 in which was received by this office on 23rd April 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;

1. How many Firearms Certificates (FAC) have been issued by your force, each calendar month, from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2018.
2016/17
April - 28
May - 26
June - 27
July - 23
August - 4
September - 29
October - 19
November - 34
December - 19
January - 17
February - 18
March - 20

2017/18
April - 27
May - 25
June - 36
July - 11
August - 29
September - 32
October - 17
November - 21
December - 19
January - 14
February - 15
March – 19

2. How many Shotgun Certificates (SGC) have been issued by your force, each calendar month, from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2018.
2016/17
April - 36
May - 52
June - 49
July - 34
August - 17
September - 59
October - 53
November - 58
December - 33
January - 57
February - 48
March - 50

2017/18
April - 47
May - 41
June - 58
July - 22
August - 54
September - 45
October - 36
November - 44
December - 38
January - 23
February - 20
March – 24
3. How many people have been refused a FAC under the terms of Section 27 (1) (a) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) when the concern was that the applicant was unfit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies due to a medical condition, each calendar month from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2018.
a) 0

4. How many people have been refused a SGC under the terms of Section 28 (1) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) when the concern was that the applicant could not be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace due to a medical condition, each calendar month from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2018.
a) 0

5. How many people have had their FAC revoked under the terms of Section 30A (2) (a) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) when the holder was considered to be of intemperate habits or unsound mind or was otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm due to a medical condition, each calendar month from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2018.
a) 0

6. How many people have had their FAC revoked under the terms of Section 30A (2) (b) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) when it was considered that the holder could no longer be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition to which the certificate relates in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace due to a medical condition, each calendar month from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2018.
a) 1

7. How many people have had their SGC revoked under the terms of Section 30C of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended)  when it was considered that the holder could not be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace due to a medical condition, each calendar month from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2018.
a) 0

8. How many people were reported to the relevant prosecution agency for a contravention of Section 28A (7) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) where the applicant knowingly or recklessly made any statement relating to a medical condition which was false in any material particular for the purpose of procuring (whether for himself or another) the grant or renewal of a certificate under this Act, each calendar month from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2018.
a) 0

Reference: 9644-18
Date: 21/05/2018 I write in connection with your request received in this office on 20th April.  I note you seek the following information:

1.For the year of 2017 please provide:
a) the total number of crime reports that were initially classified as modern slavery  - 51
b) the total number of crime reports confirmed as modern slavery by 31st December 2017 - 39
c) the detection rate for modern slavery in force as of 31st December 2017 – No positive outcomes.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9643-18
Date: 21/05/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 21st March 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in responding.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;

Defra advise the public to notify the police of any road accident involving a dog.
(https://www.gov.uk/report-dead-animal) In certain cases drivers must report RTIs involving dogs to the police under the Road Traffic Act 1998.

To this end, I am requesting, for the number of RTAs which were fatal to dogs within the last two years you have data for, or if that takes too long, the last year you have data for.
Please would you itemise the number of RTAs fatal to the dogs separately for the two years, if it is possible to provide the figure for two years.

Having made enquiries regarding your request we have been advised that there were 593 calls to the control room that involved dogs and road traffic incidents, 301 for 2016/17 and 292 for 2017/18.  We have reviewed these logs and have identified nine that relate to deceased dogs.  Of these nine, one call actually related to a deer that had been hit and killed. The actual total therefore of reports of RTAs where a dog was killed is eight, four in 2016/17 and four in 2017/18

Reference: 9642-18
Date: 21/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 20th April.  I note you seek the following:

1.       How many children and young people (aged up to 18) were recorded by the police as present in the family home when domestic abuse incidents took place in each of the following financial years?
a.      2010/11
b.      2015/16
c.      2016/17
2.      How many children aged five and under were recorded by the police as present in the family home when domestic abuse incidents took place in each of the following financial years?
a.      2010/11
b.      2015/16
c.      2016/17
3.      Of these children and young people in question one, how many were referred to children’s social care services/Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH)?
4.      Of the incidents of domestic abuse involving children (aged up to 18), how many led to the police informing the child’s school or college that an incident had taken place?

Having made enquiries within the Force the analyst providing this data has stated, comparing 2010/11 to 2015/16 and 2016/17 would not be advisable owing to improved recording of the domestic abuse flag and you would not get a like to like comparison. Owing to the fact that there is still a backlog in the PVP unit (domestic abuse section) we cannot ascertain accurate data for quarter 4 2017/18 so I have provided you figures for 2015/16 and 2016/17.

2015/16 - 3184 children and young people (aged up to 18) were recorded by police as being witnesses to a Domestic Abuse incident.  Of those 1550 were aged 5 and under.
2016/17 - 2834 children and young people (aged up to 18) were recorded by police as being witnesses to a Domestic Abuse incident.  Of those 1256 were aged 5 and under.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.
Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
For questions 3 and 4 we would rely on the following:

With regards to your request I have been advised that to answer the remaining questions would require the above crimes retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  However as a gesture of goodwill outside of the act we have provided you with what data was available.

Reference: 9640-18
Date: 18/05/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 18th April 2018 in which was received by this office on 19th April 2018.  I note you seek access to the below information by calendar year, Cleveland police record and hold such information by financial year as that is how it is required by the Home Office;

All crimes recorded where the identified victim is aged over 65 for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 calendar years, with an annual breakdown.

The number of such crimes that resulted in a prosecution, over the same years with a similar breakdown.

If possible, could you please categorise the reports by detail of the crime.

We have made enquiries with the analysts that process this information and they have provided all of the information they have been able to retrieve in the attached document.  We can only provide details regarding the positive outcome for each case.  Prosecution is the role of the Crown Prosecution Service and conviction of HM Courts and any information of that nature could be requested from them.

Reference: 9636-18
Date: 17/05/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 18th April 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  I note you seek access to the below information;

-  Number of sexual assaults in 12 months previous to 31st March 2018, where victim is over age of 18, location of sexual assault is inside, on property of or in immediate vicinity of a licensed premises.
-  From the above, assaults broken down further into categories of rape, serious sexual assault, sexual assault, indecent exposure, unwanted touching
-  From the above, attacks broken down by gender of victim
-  From the above, attacks broken down by gender of alleged perpetrator
- Number of sexual assaults in the 12 months up to 31st March 2017, where victim is over age of 18, location of sexual assault is inside, on property of or in immediate vicinity of a licensed premises.
- From the above, assaults broken down further into categories of rape, serious sexual assault, sexual assault, indecent exposure, unwanted touching
- From the above, attacks broken down by gender of victim
- From the above, attacks broken down by gender of alleged perpetrator
- Number of sexual assaults in 12 months previous to 31st March 2016, where victim is over age of 18, location of sexual assault is inside, on property of or in immediate vicinity of a licensed premises.
- From the above, assaults broken down further into categories of rape, serious sexual assault, sexual assault, indecent exposure, unwanted touching
- From the above, attacks broken down by gender of victim
- From the above, attacks broken down by gender of alleged perpetrator
- Number of sexual assaults in the 12 months up to 31st March 2015, where victim is over age of 18, location of sexual assault is inside, on property of or in immediate vicinity of a licensed premises.
-  From the above, assaults broken down further into categories of rape, serious sexual assault, sexual assault, indecent exposure, unwanted touching
-  From the above, attacks broken down by gender of victim
-  From the above, attacks broken down by gender of alleged perpetrator
-  Number of sexual assaults in 12 months previous to 31st March 2014, where victim is over age of 18, location of sexual assault is inside, on property of or in immediate vicinity of a licensed premises.
-  From the above, assaults broken down further into categories of rape, serious sexual assault, sexual assault, indecent exposure, unwanted touching
-  From the above, attacks broken down by gender of victim
-  From the above, attacks broken down by gender of alleged perpetrator

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

We have made enquiries within the force regarding your request and we have been advised by the Niche Administrator that ‘Licensed premises’ are not marked as a searchable format and therefore the only way we would be able to identify if such an offence occurred in or near licensed premises would be to manually retrieve and read each recorded crime of Sexual Assault and for 2015 there were 1392 and for 2016 1611 such offences recorded.  It is estimated that it would take approximately one and a half minutes per record to retrieve, read and collate the information if it were recorded in the MO and longer if other documents were required to be retrieved and read.  And to attempt to provide information for just 6 months would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Reference: 9635-18
Date: 17/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on the 18th April.  I note you seek access to the following information:

1) The total annual number of knife crimes where the victim or suspect was known to be involved in using or dealing illicit drugs for each of the last four calendar years including 2017.

2) The total annual number of knife crimes where it was possible to classify whether the victim or suspect was known to be involved in using or dealing illicit drugs for each of the last four calendar years including 2017.

3) The total annual number of firearm crimes where the victim or suspect was known to be involved in using or dealing illicit drugs for each of the last four calendar years including 2017.

4) The total annual number of firearm crimes where it was possible to classify whether the victim or suspect was known to be involved in using or dealing illicit drugs for each of the last four calendar years including 2017.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that this is not information required by the Home Office therefore we do not routinely record this and that there are over 2000 knife and firearm offence that would require retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  The analysts have advised that to retrieve this information they would have to read through each crime to ascertain the names of both the victim and the suspect then do further searches to see if they had any crimes recorded where they were the offender in drug offences and this is estimated would take between four to five minutes per record and to retrieve a year would take over the hours stipulated.

Reference: 9633-18
Date: 16/05/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 17th April 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  I note you seek access to the below information;

Could you please provide me with the following information, giving your most recent figures for three years (2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18) where appropriate.
Police Staff by Ethnicity and Religion
RELIGION 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
No religion
Buddhist
Christian
Hindu
Jewish
Muslim
Sikh
Spiritual
Any other religion or belief
Unknown
TOTAL
a) Cleveland police do not record, in a retrievable format, data relating to the religion of officers, PCSO’s or police staff, the only way we could determine if the information is recorded would be to manually search each personnel file to ascertain if the information is recorded.
ETHNICITY 
White
White and Black Caribbean 
White and Black African 
White and Asian 
Any other Mixed/Multiple ethnic background, please describe
Asian/Asian British
Indian 
Pakistani 
Bangladeshi 
Chinese 
Other Background
Black/ African/Caribbean/Black British
African 
Caribbean 
Any other Black/African/Caribbean background
Other ethnic group
TOTAL
Total number of officers
Total support staff
Total PCSOs
Total BAME officers
Total BAME support staff
Total BAME PCSOs
Total Muslim officers
Total Muslim support staff
Total Muslim PCSOs

We have made enquiries regarding you request and must advise that this information is submitted to the Home Office on a regular basis and we would therefore rely upon the following;

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Cleveland Police when refusing such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you  the applicant with a notice which (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption and (c) states (if it would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption(s) applies.

Notice of Non-Disclosure:
I am not disclosing the above requested information pursuant to the exemption provisions of Section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Information Reasonably Accessible by Other Means.
Section 21 of the Act states that information is exempt information if it is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Section 21 is an absolute exemption and where information falls within the scope of an absolute exemption, a public authority is not obliged to communicate it to an applicant and is also not obliged to comply with the duty to confirm or deny the existence of the information requested.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for 2015/16 and 2016/17 as the information can be found via the following link to the Home Office website.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-workforce-england-and-wales

Additionally in relation to the request for information for 2017/18 we would rely upon the following

This information is exempt by virtue of the Section 22 of the Freedom of information Act 2000 information intended for future publication.  Section 22 is a Class based qualified exemption and we are therefore required to undertake a Public Interest Test (PIT).

PIT Test
The s22 PIT is focused on whether the public interest favours the early release of this information, ahead of the next scheduled release, rather than considering the information itself.

FACTORS FAVOURING DISCLOSURE

Early retrieval and disclosure would provide updated statistics to enhance public knowledge of the force and by providing current information may better inform public debate.

FACTORS FAVOURING NON DISCLOSURE

To have authorities recover specific information to requesters only a matter of weeks ahead of scheduled disclosure in order to respond to a request, will involve a disproportionate use of resources for an authority and would ultimately negate the benefits of disclosure if no one was prepared to wait for the publication date. Proactive publication is one of the driving principles of both the Freedom of Information Act and open Government.

The existing procedures set in place regarding the publication of information relative to officer numbers and the ethnicity of such officers and staff to provide Government departments and the wider public with information about their local force and all English and Welsh forces. The Freedom of Information Act legally allows members of the public to request any information held by a public authority. The 22 exemption was specifically laid down by parliament to benefit those authorities and/or departments who proactively publish information. To constantly produce new and up to date elements of the currently published information, in order to satisfy an additional need outside of the annual schedule will render these exemptions less effective and remove the benefits of proactive publication.


BALANCE TEST
It is acknowledged that both accountability and public awareness are enhanced by the disclosure of this type of information. However, this is already achieved through the publication of the crime mapping on a monthly basis, at which time forces are held to account, and for this reason the public interest favours maintaining this schedule of publication.


POSITIVE ACTION CO-ORDINATORS [total]
Please include name of PAC, and a brief description (including its aim). [Aim: for example, increasing staff diversity, increasing inter community trust, improving staff awareness/ knowledge of BAME cultures and needs, enabling community consultations, etc].

Cleveland Police do not have a dedicated positive manager with the work being managed as part of a core recruitment work.  Please see the link below to our EDHR strategy and recent annual equality reports.
 
https://cleveland.police.uk/about-us/Everyone-Matters.aspx

Reference: 9632 – 18
Date: 16/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 17th April 2018 and received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you:

Under the Freedom of Information Act could you please give me a breakdown of the number of domestic abuse reports for 2017/18, broken down by the gender of the perpetrator/accused?

And, if possible, a break down by the age of the alleged perpetrator/accused for that same year?

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve
The analyst providing this data has stated:
Data quality relies on the domestic abuse qualifier being used appropriately on the recording system, and the date of birth and gender fields being completed.  These figures only relate to recorded crimes. Non-crime domestic incidents are omitted as there are no sanctioned offenders recorded against these.  Only sanctioned offenders are included, i.e. from those issued with a warning to those charged.  For a small number of crimes, multiple sanctioned offenders are recorded; these are often not DA crimes but have been uncovered as a consequence of a domestic abuse investigation. For the same reason, some crimes are recorded with a domestic abuse marker but the crime itself may not be, e.g. drug

2017/18
Total – 1235
Male – 1130
Female – 105 
10 – 19 =82
20 – 29 = 470
30 – 39 = 427
40 – 49 = 170
50 – 59 = 62
60 plus = 21

Reference: 9631-18
Date: 16/05/2018 I write to you in connection to your request for information received in this office on 17th April.  I note you seek the following:

1) Does your Board / Corporate Secretary use a board portal / software supplier for paperless board meetings?
2) If yes to the above can you please tell me the name of the supplier, contract expiry and contract review date?
3) If yes can you also please tell me how many users there are and the spend on this software in the last 12 months?
4) Can you also provide me with contact details for your Board/Corporate secretary (full name, job title, contact number and direct email address) ?
5) If the person responsible for the contact differs from this individual please can you also supply their full contact details?

Having made enquiries within the Force Cleveland Police do not use Board Portal Software and have no plans to do so at this time.

Reference: 9630-18
Date: 16/05/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 17th April 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;

I am writing with a Freedom of Information request regarding the police officers / civilian police staff.
I would like the total number of police officers / civilian staff in your force that have been convicted of a criminal offence in the last five years to March 31 2018.
I would also like the data divided between police officers and police civilian staff.

We have made enquiries within the Force and have been advised that within the timescale of your request there has been one police officer convicted of a criminal offence.

Reference: 9629-18
Date: 26/04/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 17th April.  I note you seek the following:

1 - Do you use live link / video technology between court and police stations to allow the defendant to appear from the police station / custody to court for 1st appearance?
a)  No
If No please skip to question 3.
2. If yes to question one. What date did you commence with this type of hearing? How many total cases have appeared by this method to date (if known). Which custody units within your force area currently use this technology?
To which courts do defendants currently appear by this method within your force area and if applicable on which days of the week.
3. If not currently in place, do you have plans to start using virtual courts within the next 12 months?-
a)  No

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9627-18
Date: 21/05/2018 I write in connection to your request for information received in this office on 17th April.  I note you seek the following;

The number of cases referred to your force in 2016, 2017 and 2018 (to date) and the number of these cases accepted for action/investigation.
For each year, please provide:
The number of these accepted cases where the total cash value of the alleged fraud was under £10,000.
The number of these accepted cases where the total cash value of the alleged fraud was between £10,000 - £24,999.99p.
The number of these cases where the total cash value of the alleged fraud was £25,000-£49,999.99.
The number of these cases where the total cash value of the alleged fraud was £50,000-£99,999.99.
The number of these cases where the total cash value of the alleged fraud was over £100,000.

Year 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total
Under £10,000 70 23 11 104
£10,000-£24,999.99 7 3 1 11
£25,000-£49,999.99 3 4 0 7
£50,000-£99,999.99 0 1 0 1
Over £100,000 4 1 2 7
Grand Total 84 32 14 130

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.  We do not hold information of rejections so all the above were accepted and investigated.

Reference: 9626-18
Date: 15/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 16th April.  I note you seek the following information:

Can you please provide answers to the following questions:

- Which police stations have been closed in your force area since 2010? Can you please state which year they closed?  
a)   Yarm Police Station - October 2014
      Jutland (neighbourhood office) – November 2014
      York Road (neighbourhood office) – November 2013
      Miers Avenue (neighbourhood office) – February 2015

- Which police stations are currently operational and can be accessed by the public?
a)  This information is available on:  www.Cleveland.pnn.police.uk  if you search on the website for Freedom of information and then who we are and what we do there is a section on Location of Police stations and opening hours

- Do you have plans to close any police stations in future? If so, please state which ones.
a) Ladgate Lane Police Headquarters

- Do you have plans to close public access to police stations in the future? If so, please state which ones.
a) None

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9624-18
Date: 15/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 16th April.  I note you seek the following:

Could you please let me know how many reports of stalking and harassment were made to Cleveland Police in the following years, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017.
 
Could you please inform me of how many of the reports made by victims to police resulted in a conviction. If possible could the figures be given for the 5 years stated above.
 
How many reports came from one victim reporting multiple cases of stalking and harassment?
 
How many reports were one victim reporting one case of stalking and harassment multiple times?

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that to complete the last two questions would require retrieving and reading manually each crime report to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.

However as a gesture of goodwill outside of the act we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.  For Convictions you would need to contact HM Courts
as it the duty  of Cleveland Police to identify, apprehend suspects, decisions regarding prosecutions is the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service and Convictions is that of HM Courts Service therefore Conviction data is held by HM Courts.

Reference: 9623-18
Date: 15/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th April 2018 and received by this office on 16th April 2018.  Below are the questions raised in your request and all of the information we have been able to retrieve for you:

1. The total instances of reported theft from motor vehicles in Middlesbrough per year, for the last 5 years.
Total 3699
2013 – 999 
2014 – 672 
2015 – 575 
2016 – 684 
2017 – 769 

2. Total instances of reported theft from motor vehicles in Middlesbrough per year, for each ward.

3. How many of these reported cases resulted in an actual visit by a police officer or police staff member.

4. On average, the number of days a theft from a motor vehicle case stayed open before being closed.

5. Number of people per year convicted of theft from motor vehicles.
a) Cleveland Police gather evidence and charge offenders to court but we do not convict, this is the remit of HM Courts and conviction data would be held by them.

6. Details of how many police staff patrol streets (in Middlesbrough) during the hours of 12:00am – 06:00am


Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having made enquiries regarding your request we have been advised that there were a total of 3,699 reported Theft from a Motor Vehicle crimes and to answer questions 2, 3 and 4 would require the manual retrieval and reading to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
As a gesture of goodwill, outside of the Freedom of information Act, we have supplied information, to answer question 1 and information pertinent to question 5 relative to your request, retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I hope that this is of help to you and note that it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

Reference: 9621-18
Date: 15/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 16th April.  I note you seek the following:

1. Since the introduction of the criminal offence of coercive and controlling behaviour on 29 December 2015 and till 31 March 2018 how many times has the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour been recorded in your police force?

2. Since the introduction of the criminal offence of coercive and controlling behaviour on 29 December 2015 and till 31 March 2018 how many times the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour was recorded in your police force as committed against the victim aged 16 or 17?

3. Out of the total number of times the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour was recorded between December 2015 and 31 March 2018 ( as in question (1) how many were assigned the following outcomes:
a) Charged/ Summoned / Caution
b) Out – of- court disposal (formal and informal)
c) Prosecution prevented
d) not in the public interest (police)
e) not in the public interest (CPS)
f) Evidential Difficulties (suspect not identified, victim does not support action)
a) Evidential Difficulties (suspect identified, victim supports action)
b) Evidential Difficulties (suspect identified, victim does not support action)
c) Investigation complete - no suspect identified
d) Action undertaken by another  body/agency
e) Further investigation to support formal action not in the public interest
f) Offences not yet assigned an outcome (incomplete/on-going)

4. Out of the total number of times the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour was recorded between December 2015 and 31 March 2018, where victims age was 16 or 17 year old ( as in question 2), how many were assigned the following outcomes:
a) Charged/ Summoned / Caution
b) Out – of- court disposal (formal and informal)
c) Prosecution prevented
d) not in the public interest (police)
e) not in the public interest (CPS)
f) Evidential Difficulties (suspect not identified, victim does not support action)
g) Evidential Difficulties (suspect identified, victim supports action)
h) Evidential Difficulties (suspect identified, victim does not support action)
i) Investigation complete - no suspect identified
j) Action undertaken by another  body/agency
k) Further investigation to support formal action not in the public interest
l) Offences not yet assigned an outcome (incomplete/on-going)

Having made enquires within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve the outcomes are what is produced by our recording system.

Reference: 9620-18
Date: 14/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 13th April.  I note you seek the following:

After speaking to a few people on the phone I have been given this email for my request. I am doing a Forensic Psychology Masters at Teesside University, were I am designing a mock training plan in regards to vulnerable suspects. I am a bit of stickler for details so would love to know the actual number of officers that are based at Redcar police station, rather than making a figure up. Please let me know if this possible.

Having made enquiries within the Force below is all the information we have been able to retrieve this is for the whole of Redcar and Cleveland policing area.
 
Location No. of Police Officers
Grangetown L&D Centre 49
Guisborough Station  11
Redcar & Cleveland HQ  95
Redcar Town Office  12
South Bank Station  13

Reference: 9619-18
Date: 14/05/2018 I write to you in connection with your request for information received in this office on 13th April.  I note you seek the following:

Could you please provide me with all use of force data collected from 1st April 2017 – 1st April 2018.

Please provide the information in an excel spreadsheet or another machine readable format.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9618 – 18
Date: 14/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 13th April.  I note you seek the following:

Under the Freedom of Information Act, please could you provide me with the following information: how many deaths of people who were sleeping rough were recorded in the police force area in each of the following calendar years, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017?

Please provide a breakdown for each of the years of the number of deaths by location (local authority area) as well as the gender, age, and cause of death, if known.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having contacted the relevant department regarding your request I have been advised that this is not information we routinely record and to ascertain this information all sudden death incidents of which for 2017 alone there are 1350 would require retrieving and reading manually to identify if the information is held it is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.  We would normally ask you to refine your request but even reducing your request to 6 months would take over the stipulated time.  We would suggest that you contact the Coroner’s Office for this information however they are not subject to Freedom of Information.

Reference: 9617 -18
Date: 14/05/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 13th April 2018 in which was received by this office on that date.  Below are the questions raised in your request and the information we have been able to retrieve for you;

I would like to know what your procedure is, when you are asked by a social worker to carry out a safeguarding check on a potential house mate of a vulnerable adult, before the vulnerable adult moves in.
Please tell me what things the safeguarding check looks for, and what (if any) types of things are excluded from these checks.
How far back does the checks go? How many years does it look at? Does it check even if the person has lived in various places around the UK? How thorough is the checks?
How many of these safeguarding checks have been carried out during 2017 in the Stockton On Tees area?
We have made enquiries with our Protecting Vulnerable People department and they have advised that we are not asked to carry out these checks, in relation to adults, by Social Care.  We would suggest therefore that you may need to request information, regarding their procedures, from them.

Reference: 9614-18
Date: 11/05/2018 I write in response to your e-mail request dated 11th April 2018 in which was received by this office on 12th April 2018.  I note you seek access to below information;

1. Please provide the figures for how many (i) police officers and (ii) police staff you employed each year from 2000 until 2015.

2. Please provide a break down to show how many police officers you employed at each rank (i.e. constable, sergeant, inspector, chief inspector, superintendent, chief superintendent - chief police officer ranks can be collected together in a single category) at each year.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies

Notice of Non-Disclosure:
I am not disclosing the above requested information pursuant to the exemption provisions of Section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Section 21 of the Act (Information Reasonably Accessible by Other Means) states that information is exempt information if it is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Section 21 is an absolute exemption and where information falls within the scope of an absolute exemption, a public authority is not obliged to communicate it to an applicant and is also not obliged to comply with the duty to confirm or deny the existence of the information requested.

The information relative to questions 1 and 2 is published data and is available via the below links: The first link has data from the year
2010 up to 2017 and the second link has the archived data prior to 2010.


In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-workforce-england-and-wales
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218143229/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hosbarchive.html

3. Please further provide a break down for each year to show how many police officers at each rank were (i) in the uniformed branch and (ii) how many were detectives.
a. We are unable to provide you with this data as it is not routinely recorded and there is no requirement under the Act to create data so my answer to this question must be no information held.

Reference: 9613-18
Date: 11/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 12th April.  I note you seek the following:

 Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would like to know:
1. The number of reports of domestic abuse-related incidents and domestic-abuse offences (also known as domestic violence), allegedly committed by police officers, community support officers and other police staff, that have been received by your police force annually, over the last 3 years up to and including the present day (12th April 2015 to 11th April 2018)

a)  The below data relates to Complaint/Conduct data located on DSE complaint system (Centurion)

Year Summary      Outcome IOPC Referral
2015 Allegation of domestic violence    No Case to Answer Yes
2016 Allegations of historic assault    No Case to Answer Yes
2016 Domestic incident involving estranged partner  No Case to Answer No
2016 Allegation of domestic violence    Not Proven  Yes
2017 Allegation of domestic assault against ex partner Management Action No

2. The type of each report
a)  See above
3. The outcome(s) of each report
a)  See above
4. Whether each report was referred to the IOPC (formerly known as the IPCC)
a)  See above
5. Your policies and procedures concerning police officer & staff domestic abuse-related criminal offences

a)  Domestic Incidents Involving Members of Staff

The over-riding principles to be borne in mind when dealing with an incident involving a Police employee is the need for confidentiality and all persons should be treated with dignity and respect.
 The Duty Inspector, or in their absence the duty Sergeant, will always attend any domestic abuse incident where a Police employee is involved.
The G 01-66 will be completed by the attending Officer unless the Duty Inspector/Sergeant directs otherwise. It is essential in cases involving Police employees, that a member of staff from the Vulnerability Unit makes personal contact with the victim as soon as possible to offer support.
The District Duty Inspector will inform the Duty Silver Officer (Force Duty officer or a member of the relevant Department Management Team during the day) of any Domestic incident involving Police employees. The Force Duty officer will ensure force policy is followed and that the relevant Management Team is notified in due course.
When a Police employee is arrested the Custody Officer will ensure that the Duty District Officer (or Force Silver as appropriate) of the arrested member of staff is informed promptly of the employees arrest and that they should inform the appropriate Executive Officer.
As well as the statutory responsibilities of the Custody Officer the Duty District Officer or Force Silver will consider what action is considered appropriate depending on the individual circumstances of the case.
The Professional Standards Department should be informed as soon as possible if a police officer or member of police staff is arrested, in order that a Liaison Officer may be appointed. This should be done as soon as possible.
The investigative ownership will be determined by the District Duty Officer or Force Silver, to ensure an appropriate level of independence. The risk assessment and safety planning for the victim will remain the responsibility of the PVP.
Proper consideration is to be given to the provision of welfare services to all parties involved in the incident. The responsibility lies with the employee's Service Unit Manager to ensure services are formally offered and made available to them. The Human Resources Department have created guidance for all staff involved in domestic incidents. This provides advice on dealing with issues surrounding the matter and identifies suitable support mechanisms.
Where a member of staff is under investigation the employees Service Unit Manager will liaise with the Executive and the Head of HR, to consider suspension or re- deployment of the employee pending the final outcome of the case. Professional Standards Department (P.S.D.) will ensure that appropriate monitoring and assessment arrangements are in place to identify the risk factors associated with any cases involving police staff. These arrangements should involve the representatives from the relevant Command, P.S.D., HR, Staff Associations and ACPO.

Police employees arrested in Cleveland but from other Forces will be treated in the same way as our own employees. Early notification of the arrest to the Officer in charge of the appropriate Force Communications Centre will be made by the Custody Officer.
The Service Unit Manager of any police officer involved holds the responsibility for consideration of whether misconduct procedures are appropriate. In the case of police staff this responsibility lies with the Head of HR. However, consultation should take place with the Head of Professional Standards Department in every case.
All completed files in relation to police officers and staff must be forwarded to the Professional Standards Department where they will be stored and retained.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The Cleveland Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 30(3) Investigations;
Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a public interest test.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S30 - By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the question exists would enable the public to obtain satisfaction that all investigations are conducted properly and that their public money is well spent.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S30 - By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the question exists, would hinder the prevention or detection of crime, undermine the partnership approach to law enforcement , which would subsequently affect the force’s future law enforcement capabilities.

Balancing Test - Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, public safety and the ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount importance to the Police Service.  Confirmation or denial of whether information is held would undoubtedly compromise both law enforcement and the health and safety of an individual.  Therefore, it is my opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming whether or not any other information is held by Cleveland Police is not made out.

In accordance with Section 17(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a Refusal Notice for your request.

No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist. 

Reference: 9612-18
Date: 10/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 11th April.  I note you seek the following:

I would like to know how many officers took sick leave for depression, anxiety, stress or post-traumatic stress between the financial year April 2017 to April 2018. By this I mean where any of the terms 'depression', 'anxiety' or 'stress' or 'post-traumatic stress' appear in the description of the officer's illness.
Please include a breakdown listing the specific illnesses, where possible.

Having made enquiries within the Force all the information we have been able to retrieve is below:

Depression/Anxiety - 58
Stress – 127

Reference: 9610-18
Date: 10/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 11th April.  I note you seek the following:

How many deaths in service since 2002? Can this be broken into on duty and off duty.
From 1St January 2002 till date of request 19 deaths.
Police Officers – 13
Police Staff – 5
PCSO – 1
We do not record if it occurred on or off duty.

Causes of deaths – again separated into on duty and off duty. (eg traffic accidents, natural causes, after an accident, suicide, terrorism)

We do not receive/require a copy of the death certificate and as above we do not record if it is on or off duty.  Therefore no information is held.

Having made enquiries within the Force above is all the information we have been able to retrieve.

Reference: 9606-18
Date: 10/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 10th April.  I note you seek the following information:

Please provide the following information since 1st January 2015:
1. A list of all civil claims made against Cleveland Police. For each one, please give the month the claim was made, the basis of the claim and the outcome of the claim. Please indicate those claims settled before formal court action and give the amounts paid in settlement. Please indicate those claims that went to court and the final awards of the court.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Having made enquiries within our Legal Department there case management system will not produce a report where this information will be shown.  The would have to go into each individual claim to obtain the information retrieving and reading manually to ascertain if they are pertinent to your request and is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of information Act.   
However we would suggest resubmitting a new request for a shorter period of time and we will look at this again.

Reference: 9605-18
Date: 09/05/2018 I am writing in connection with your request for information received in this office on 10th April.  I note you seek the following:

I am writing to make an application under the Freedom of Information Act. I would like to know how many ‘threat to life warning notices’ - or so-called ‘Osman warnings’ - your force issues in 2017 and then also 2016 (please break down by each year).
Is it possible to say how many of those warnings were issued to those under the age of 18 (if there are any specific ages of those under 18, I would be grateful to know - even if it is just the youngest)? Is there a breakdown of how many were issued to men and women? And, as a long shot, can you say how many were connected to domestic violence or gangs.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Cleveland Police when refusing such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you  the applicant with a notice which (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption and (c) states (if it would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption(s) applies.

Notice of Non-Disclosure:
I am not disclosing the above requested information pursuant to the exemption provisions of Section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section 21 of the Act (Information Reasonably Accessible by Other Means) states that information is exempt information if it is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Section 21 is an absolute exemption and where information falls within the scope of an absolute exemption, a public authority is not obliged to communicate it to an applicant and is also not obliged to comply with the duty to confirm or deny the existence of the information requested. 

This information is available on the www.cleveland.police.uk  - menu – advice and information – Freedom of information - Freedom of Information disclosure log – log no 9427-18.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request.

Reference: 9604-18
Date: 09/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 9th April.  I note you seek the following information:

1. How many people were arrested by Cleveland Police for being on their phone whilst driving in the 2017?
a) 0 Persons are not arrested for driving whilst on their phones, there are given an endorsable notice (fine)
2. How many people were charged by Cleveland Police with death by dangerous driving in a case involving distraction by a phone in 2017?
a)  0
3. How many people have been involved in a fatal accident as a result of a car crash involving a driver using their phone whilst driving in 2017?
a)  0
4. Please can Cleveland Police provide any relevant incident reports of people being arrested for using their phone whilst driving?
a)  N/A  see question 1
5. Since the new laws came into place on March 1 2017 how many drivers have been disqualified from driving by Cleveland Police after being caught using their phone whilst driving?
a) This information is held by HM Courts
6. How many people have been arrested for drink driving in 2017 by Cleveland Police?
a)  561 arrests
age Female Male
17 1 1
18 0 4
19 0 12
20 7 9
21 2 9
22 1 15
23 0 12
24 2 15
25 3 15
26 2 23
27 4 17
28 3 15
29 3 22
30 5 14
31 3 16
32 3 22
33 3 16
34 1 13
35 3 12
36 3 15
37 2 7
38 5 10
39 0 9
40 6 7
41 3 8
42 4 5
43 3 10
44 0 11
45 8 5
46 1 8
47 3 5
48 3 10
49 3 6
50 2 5
51 3 7
52 2 4
53 2 4
54 4 7
55 2 8
56 0 3
57 0 4
58 1 3
59 0 5
60 2 3
62 0 1
63 0 2
64 1 2
65 0 3
66 0 4
67 1 0
68 0 1
69 0 1
70 0 1
71 0 1
72 0 1
77 0 1
78 0 1
87 0 1
110 451
7. How many people have been disqualified from driving by Cleveland Police as a result of drink driving in 2017?
a)  This information is held by HM Courts
8. How many people have been in a fatal accident as a result of drink driving in 2017?
Please can you provide your answers for Q1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 in a table giving age and gender of the drivers.
a) There have been two fatalities resulting from collisions that involved a suspected drink driver.

Reference: 9603-18
Date: 09/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 10th April.  I note you seek the following information:

Can you please provide the details of the number of Domestic Abuse Victims reporting to your Police Authority broken down as follows:
The period 1st January 2017 to 31st December 2017 inclusive by Age, Ethnic Origin and Gender
For ease of reference, please incorporate a summary total by Age, Ethnic Origin and Gender both Force Wide and by Police Division.

Having made enquiries within the Force we have attached a document with all the information we have been able to retrieve.  The analyst providing the data has stated the figures only relate to recorded crimes that have a domestic abuse qualifier. Non-crime domestic incidents are omitted. 
Figures have been grouped by age and ethnicity to prevent victims being identified by putting with any other information you may hold.

Reference: 9602-18
Date: 08/05/2018 I write in connection with your request for information received in this office on 9th April.  I note you seek the following:

Please provide the number of arrests made under the Psychoactive Substances Act since May 2016, broken down by month and by the offence suspected of being committed. This information should be available by conducting a search of the NSPIS for CJS codes that begin with ‘PS160’.

Please also provide the number of these arrests where nitrous oxide was the substance in question. This information should be available by searching the above records for the following terms:

Laughing gas
Nitrous oxide
NOS
NO2
Canisters
Gas canisters
Balloons

Having made enquiries within the Force we record crime using the home office counting rules see link:  https://data.gov.uk/dataset/recorded-crime-counting-rules using the home office counting rules we searched for the below offences

93/41 E 7 S Drug Offences Possession of drugs 92C Other drug offences Produce a psychoactive substance Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 Sec 4 (1) 2016 26-May-16
93/42 E 7 S Drug Offences Possession of drugs 92C Other drug offences Supply a psychoactive substance Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 Sec 5 (1) 2016 26-May-16
93/43 E 7 S Drug Offences Possession of drugs 92C Other drug offences Offer to supply a psychoactive substance Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 Sec 5 (2) 2016 26-May-16
93/44 E 7 S Drug Offences Possession of drugs 92C Other drug offences Possess a psychoactive substance with intent to supply Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 Sec 7 2016 26-May-16
93/45 E 7 S Drug Offences Possession of drugs 92C Other drug offences Import a psychoactive substance Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 Sec 8 (1) 2016 26-May-16 93/47 E 2 S Drug Offences Possession of drugs 92C Other drug offences Possess a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 Sec 9 (1) 2016 26-May-16

Since May 16 there has been one arrest for Possess a psychoactive substance with intent to supply (recordable) in 2017 and it is unknown what the substance as it is not recorded.

Reference: 9599-18
Date: 08/05/2018 I write in response to your e-mail of 09 April 2018 in which you state;

“Hoping you can help on this one, trying to find the reply from yourselves to an FOI I did a few years back, seems my email server doesn’t save anything over 1 year old sadly, I’ve looked on your disclosure log for this one too but can’t see anything on there”.

On 13 April 2017 we wrote to you and advised;
“We have made enquiries within the force in order to provide you with an answer however at this time we are unable assist as Cleveland and North Yorkshire Police are currently setting up a combined unit and part of its duties will be to look at the undetected/unsolved murders. The new unit/team will not be fully operational until May 2017 and I would respectfully ask that your request be withdrawn at this time and re submitted after 01 November 2017”.  As we heard nothing in response to this