NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
18 March 2010
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
0114/2010
Mr Angelo Marino Bruno
Force Disclosure Unit
Em
ail: [email address]
Police Headquarters
173 Pitt Street
GLASGOW
G2 4JS
Tel: 0141 435 1217
Fax: 0141 435 1218
Dear Mr Bruno
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NUMBER 0114/2010
I refer to your request for information dated 17 February 2010, which was received by
Strathclyde Police on that date.
Your request for information has now been considered and on 18 March 2010, a decision was
made to provide some of the information requested by you. Some of the information
requested by you is, however, considered to be exempt in terms of the Freedom of
Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (the Act). Section 16 of the Act requires Strathclyde Police
to provide you with a notice which: (a) states that it holds the information, (b) states that it is
claiming an exemption, (c) specifies the exemption in question and (d) states, if that would
not be otherwise apparent, why the exemption applies. Where information is considered to be
exempt, this letter serves as a Refusal Notice and an explanation of the appropriate exemption
is provided.
For ease of reference, I have provided a response to each of the questions posed by you, as
detailed below.
1. Total number of and names and job titles of all your employees, officers (all ranks) who
are Common Purpose Graduates.
The following table provides some of the information you have requested. In relation to
numbers 11 to 15 where the officers names have not been included the exemptions listed
below apply:
1
Detective Superintendent
Colin Field
2
Detective Inspector
Douglas Weir
3
Programmes Manager
Zoe White
4
Chief Inspector
Malcolm MacCormick
5
Superintendent
Fiona McPherson
6 Inspector
Craig
Ritchie
7
Chief Superintendent
David Thomson
8
Chief Superintendent
Graham Cairns
9 Constable
Elaine
Kennedy
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
10 Sergeant
Farooq
Hussain
11 Inspector
12 Chief
Inspector
13 Detective
Inspector
14 Superintendent
15 Detective
Superintendent
Section 35(1) (a) & (b)
In relation to numbers 11 to 15, the officers concerned are currently, or have recently been
involved in sensitive covert roles within the Force. Release of their names may compromise
the investigations in which they are involved, their safety, the safety of their colleagues and of
the public. Release of their names and the consequences of this may also prevent officers
from wishing to carry out these roles in the future, and would, or would be likely to prejudice
substantially the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of
offenders.
This is a non-absolute exemption and requires the application of the public interest test.
Section 39 (1) – Health, safety and the environment
Release of the names of officers who are in these roles would, or would be likely to, endanger
the physical or mental health or the safety of an individual. Identification of the officers
concerned could not only compromise any investigation that they are involved in, but also
their own safety and would discourage others from wishing to carry out such duties in the
future, for fear that their safety would be put at risk. If the officers are put at risk, the safety
of their colleagues would also be compromised and the effectiveness of the investigations
hindered. If this were to occur, then the safety of the public would also be put at risk.
This is a non-absolute exemption and requires the application of the public interest test.
Public Interest Test
As you can see, the above exemptions are non-absolute and require the application of the
public interest test. It could be argued that accountability for public funds would favour
disclosure. That said, the applicability of the above exemptions, the nature of the criminal
investigations that the officers are involved in, their personal interests, their safety and the
safety of others and the need for the efficient and effective conduct of the Force favour
retention of this information.
2. Total amount spent by your organisation on Common Purpose programmes for your
staff in each year from 1997-2009 inclusive.
In relation to years 1997-2003 inclusive, Strathclyde Police does not hold the information you
request and in term of Section 17 of the Act, this letter represents a formal notice that
information is not held. By way of explanation, the invoices pertaining to charges made up to
2003, inclusive, were destroyed in line with the Strathclyde Police Record Retention Policy (4
years plus current year to be held). A copy of the Record Retention Schedule can be found
via the following link
http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/index.asp?locID=1461&docID=-1
The total expenditure by Strathclyde Police on Common Purpose programmes from 2004 to
2009 is detailed in the table below. As all VAT is reclaimed the amounts refer to the analysed
amount which is the actual cost to the Force.
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
YEAR TOTAL
COST
2004
3,950
2005
4,430
2006
4,700
2007
7,225
2008
19,725
2009
7,000
I hope this information is helpful, however, if you are not satisfied with the way in which
your request has been dealt with, you are entitled in the first instance to request a review of
the decision made by the Force. Should you wish to request such a review, please write to
Mrs Sheena Brennan, Disclosure Manager at the above address within 40 working days of
receiving this letter. Once informed of the Review Panel’s decision, if you are still not
satisfied, then you are entitled to apply to the Scottish Information Commissioner within six
months for a decision. Contact details are; Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner,
Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes Road, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9DS, telephone 01334 464610.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in Strathclyde Police.
Should you require any further assistance concerning this matter please contact me directly on
0141 435 1217 quoting the reference number given.
Yours sincerely
Susan McGinlay
Sergeant
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
