24 September 2009

Mr. Murray

Your ref

Dear Mr Murray

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO:

F-2009-01251

I write in connection with your request, which was received by Lincolnshire Police on 13 August 2009, in which you seek access to the following information;

Lincolnshire Police has carried out directed surveillance under the provisions of this Act and I attach a table showing this information.

However, in respect of your specific questions shown above.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section1 (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.

Lincolnshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested in respect of your specific questions shown above, 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 24(2) National Security;

Section 30(3) Investigations;

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 but sections 24(2), 30(3)), and 31(3)are qualified and require us to carry out a public interest balancing test before they can be relied upon.

Harm Test

To confirm or deny any Police actions in this specialist tactical area would undermine ongoing investigations, reveal policing techniques, risk the identification of individuals, the possibly of revealing involvement of any exempt bodies and the risk in undermining National Security.

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 these questions, 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.

Factors Favouring Compliance with Section 1(1) a (To confirm or deny)

Confirming or denying that these powers have been used would increase public scrutiny of police actions and in turn hold the police service to account.

It is appreciated that members of the public will naturally be interested in techniques employed for surveillance. Likewise, we also understand some people believe surveillance (in any form) is used too widely, and therefore an unnecessary intrusion into their privacy. Confirmation or denial of the use of this operational tactic will enable better informed public debate.

Factors favouring the need to Neither confirm nor deny

To confirm or deny if this information does or does not exist will render policing tactics ineffective as previously outlined. A legislative scrutiny framework already exists for RIPA activity: Police surveillance activity is subject to annual inspection by the Interception of Communications Commissioners Office (IOCCO) and Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC). 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.

.

In respect of all three qualified exemptions we have determined that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in confirming whether Lincolnshire Police hold the information.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in Lincolnshire Police

Yours sincerely,

Mr C. Knowles

Force Data Protection Officer

Lincolnshire Police provides you with the right to request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure (copy enclosed). If you decide to request such a review and having followed the full process you are still dissatisfied, then you have the right to direct your comments to the Information Commissioner who will give it consideration.