Monday, 14 September 2009

Mr Richard Taylor

[FOI #14036 email]

Dear Mr Taylor

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 0353/09

An independent FOI Appeals Panel met on 10^th September 2009 to consider your request. Your request was received as follows:

At around 0400 on the 15th of November 2008 a large number of cars

were damaged in the Arbury area of Cambridge. Could you please let

me know:

i. According to your records how many vehicles were damaged?

ii. For how many of those vehicles have the police been made aware

of the cost of repair?

iii. What do the police believe was the total value of damage done

during that incident? On what basis has this figure been

calculated?

iv. Has anyone been put before the courts with respect to this

incident? Was any compensation awarded to those whose property had

been damaged?

The Panel has considered your application and have noted the decision made by the Information Access Office (IAO) on 20^th July, which supplied information in respect of your first question and refused the remainder by application of the following exemption:

Having given due consideration to each of your original questions the Panel reached the following decisions in respect of each:

i. The Panel agree that the original response is correct. We clarify however that this information was gained by officer recording observations of vehicle damage during the night of the incident. They noted both the damage to the vehicle and registration details then left a `calling-card' on the windscreen of each vehicle noted.

ii. The Panel consider that this information, if held, should be given and thereby uphold your appeal in respect of this question. This is because we have interpreted the term `police' to mean `Cambridgeshire Constabulary' rather than all forces. We can advise that as at the date of your request, Cambridgeshire Constabulary had been formally notified by one vehicle owner as to the possible cost of repair. There is no record of the actual cost suffered by the owner or their insurance company at this time.

iii. The Panel consider that this is information which we are unable to provide since it is not held. Our decision is based on the fact that the recorded information shows only what one vehicle owner expected the cost of repair to be; not the final invoiced cost and we would not make an estimate or calculation based on this. We can advise that victims of crime are contacted at the final stages of an investigation to ascertain accurate figures prior to court proceedings. Were accurate information presently held, then it would be appropriate to consider exemption under S30 at least until proceedings had concluded.

iv. The Panel uphold the decision not to release this information and that S30 has been properly applied and agree that the Public Interest Test favours non-disclosure more strongly.

Please find attached a copy of the complaints procedure should you wish to complain to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely

Niki Howard

Director of Resources (ACPO)