BNP membership list

Dear Mr Walker,

Enquiry Ref : 2009/2024

I acknowledge receipt of your enquiry of today Monday the 5th October 2009 requesting information concerning the Membership list of the BNP.

As set out by the Freedom of Information Act it will be our aim to respond to your request by 02 November 2009. In some cases, however, we may be unable to achieve this deadline. If this occurs we will advise you of the likely timescale within which the response will be provided.

If you have any questions regarding your request please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Conlin
FOI Decision Maker
Public Information Unit
Tel 01642 306825

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Walker,

Enquiry Ref : 2009/2024

I write in connection with your request for information dated 05 October 2009 concerning BNP Membership List.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in providing a response to your request resulting in your need to chase me up on the subject; I hope this has not been of inconvenience to you.

In your request you stated then asked:
In November 2008 the membership list of the British National Party
(BNP) was published online. On September 1, 2009 a disgruntled
former official Matt Single was convicted in relation to this for
offences under the Data Protection Act.

I refer to Schedule 1 of The Data Protection Principles.

Under Schedule 1, any use of 'sensitive personal data' must be
Processed only when at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
At least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.

1. Please tell me if the Cleveland Police has processed any data
relating to the leaked British National Party membership list.

2. Please tell me which of the conditions in Schedule 2 and
Schedule 3
were met when processing sensitive personal data?

3. Has sensitive personal data been used for any purposes other
than
comparing against the Cleveland Police Police personnel database?

4. Who was responsible for the decision to compare sensitive
personnel
data against Cleveland Police's personnel data?

5. What were the grounds for such a decision?

6. I request the minutes of any meeting held to come to such a
decision.

7. Please describe the process used in making such a decision and
whether the consequences of this decision, if any, were assessed.

Regarding the above, Under section 17(1) FOIA 2000 Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that we possess any information in relation to your request by virtue of sections 30(3) Investigations,31(3) law enforcement, and section 40(5) (b) (i) Personal information. This is not to be interpreted as confirmation that any specific Information in relation to your request is held.

By way of explanation to you I would point out the following:

Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny it holds any information in relation to investigations it may have or have not conducted, which have not subsequently been placed in the public domain. Not only would this undermine any current investigation by alerting those who are suspected of criminal activity, but it may also thwart any such investigation which is being managed as a covert operation. This in itself would disclose our tactical options, undermining future operations, but also in this case potentially disclose personal data of an individual. This is because the list to which you refer contained the names of individuals. To confirm, or deny that certain action may or may not have been taken will reveal whether an individual named was suspected of being employed by the force. This may not in fact mean they are a member of the BNP but in fact do no more than simply confirm that we have a member of staff with the same name as one that appears on the list.

Before refusing to comply with the provisions of S1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act, the force also has to analyse any public interest factors in neither confirming nor denying that information is or is not held if any of the exemptions cited are qualified in nature. Both S30 and S31 are, so the following public interest factors are relevant.
S30 Investigations
Favouring confirmation or denial:
Confirming the existence of information would show that the force conducted an investigation, which the public would expect.
Against confirmation or denial:
An investigation if unknown could be compromised and it could hinder the prevention or detection of crime. That may even be because under FOIA forces may provide different responses and application of the S30 exemption in some areas and not others would in fact immediately expose such investigations.
S31 Law Enforcement
Favouring confirmation or denial:
Some information regarding the ability to check against the list is already in the public domain and its full usage would make the public better informed.
Against confirmation or denial:
Law enforcement tactics could be compromised and there could be a hindrance to the prevention or detection of crime.

Balance of Public Interest
At this time the potential harm to current and future investigations outweighs any public benefit in knowing if any additional information is, or is not held. Police Officers and staff are held to public account for their actions by the misconduct regulations and the force is held to account for investigating such matters appropriately by Her Majesties Inspector Of Constabulary, and/or in some cases by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. There is no further tangible community benefit in complying with section 1(1)(a) of the Act at this time.

In Relation to Section 40 of the Act this is an absolute exemption hence it requires no such consideration of the Harm or Public interest to be considered.

This response should not be taken as an inference that the force does, or does not hold any information in relation to your request.

It may assist you to know that the Police Service would be legally entitled to process this sensitive personal data anyway, under Schedule 2 Condition 5 and Schedule 3 paragraph 10 (Statutory Instrument 417/2000, the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2000, paragraph 2). The grounds for any decision would be that being a member of the BNP is incompatible with the role of a police officer/police staff and would be regarded as gross misconduct requiring formal action. This does not however mean that the force have taken such action at this time.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request that we review your case under our review procedure. If you decide to request that such a review is undertaken and following this process you are still dissatisfied you then have the right to direct your complaint to the Information Commissioner for consideration.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Conlin
FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information
Cleveland Police
Wetherby House
Tel 01642 306825

show quoted sections