Payments to informers (2009)

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Traill,

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

I refer to your request for information dated 25th January, 2010, which
has been considered. I am unable to supply you with the information you
have requested. In accordance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland)
Act 2002, this letter is a Notice that the information you requested is
exempt :

Request :

As below :

Response :

For your information you may like to visit the Scottish Information
Commissioner's decision notice :
[1]http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/appli...

Part 1, Section 16 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002,
requires Central Scotland Police when refusing to provide such information
because it is exempt, 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 not otherwise
apparent, why the exemption applies as follows :

Exemption(s) Applied :

FOISA Exemptions

Section 34(3) - read in conjunction with Section 35 (2) (a)

Section 39(1)

Section 35(1)

Part 2, Section 34, Investigations by Scottish public authorities and
proceedings arising out of such investigations

(3) Information held by a Scottish public authority is exempt information
if-

a. It was obtained or recorded by the authority of the purposes of
investigations (other than such investigations as are mentioned in
subsection(1)) which are, by virtue either of Her Majesty's
prerogative powers conferred by or under any enactment, conducted by
the authority for any purpose specified in section 35(2);

Part 2, Section 35, Law Enforcement

(2) The purposes are-

a. to ascertain whether a person has failed to comply with the law;

Part 2, Section 39, Health, Safety and the Environment

(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act,
would, or would likely to, endanger the physical or mental health or the
safety of an individual.

Part 2, Section 35, (1) Law Enforcement

Harm

There is a need to protect all information relating to Covert Human
Intelligence Sources (CHIS) on the basis that all law enforcement bodies
are dependant upon the free and frank provision of information (either
freely or under payment) by members of the public.

It must also be remembered that informants are regarded as confidential
sources and that information supplied by them is used by the police and
intelligence agencies to solve crime.

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 CHIS are identified it can result
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. The disclosure of information relating to the total and
highest amounts paid to CHIS and the location of these payments (in terms
of each force) would allow those involved in serious and organised crime
to interpret these payments across forces and apply these to law
enforcement activities which have impacted upon their own criminal
network. This would be particularly relevant where CHIS have provided
information on high profile or significant cases or have provided
information to a smaller force which would be easier to identify. This
would or would be likely to result in such persons actively seeking to
identify CHIS within their organisation and using extreme violence against
them.

In addition, given that the information has the potential to identify
individual CHIS, it would also serve as a deterrent to existing or
prospective CHIS from providing information to the police. This would or
would be likely to prejudice substantially the prevention or detection of
crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders by reducing the
flow of information to the police service and intelligence agencies. It
would also have a substantial prejudicial impact on the ability of such
authorities to collect reliable and accurate intelligence and would result
in them becoming dependant on more costly and time consuming methods of
collecting intelligence.

Public Interest Test (In addition to any local issues)

Considerations Favouring Disclosure

Accountability

Disclosure of this information would enlighten members of the public as to
the approximate amounts of money spent by the Constabulary on CHIS's. This
may go some way to promoting awareness and accountability where
expenditure of public funds is concerned.

Public Debate

Release of this information would assist in any public debate on the
Police Service use of informants.

Favouring Non-Disclosure

Efficient and Effective Conduct of the Force

The current or future law enforcement role of the force may be compromised
by the release of information, i.e. where the prevention/detection of
crime, the apprehension/prosecution of offenders or the administration of
justice, may be hindered as a result of the release of information.

Fair Treatment of an Individual

An informant provides the information solely on the grounds that it is
completely confidential; disclosure, of any kind, could adversely affect
the reputation of an individual with dangerous consequences, given that
disclosure could be used to identify an individual CHIS. The use of CHIS
is regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which requires
authorities to take into account the provisions of the Human Rights Act
when using CHIS (and other covert techniques). This is further supported
by a recent 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.

Public Safety

Release of this information may adversely affect public safety if the
criminal fraternity/less law abiding individuals are provided with a
tactical advantage over the police.

Exemption Provisions

As more than one exemption provisions applies to the information
requested, the public interest consideration would be in favour of
non-disclosure.

Flow of Information to the Force

Release of information would act as a deterrent to the public to provide
information to the force. If the relationship between the force and
members of the public/CHIS's were impeded, the gathering of information to
enable the force to perform its public service functions would become more
difficult than it already is.

The use of informants takes place in an environment of absolute trust and
confidence. Anything which undermines this ethos would have a detrimental
effect, reducing the quality of information the service receives.

Statutory Oversight

The Office of the Surveillance Commissioner (OSC) has a statutory
responsibility for overseeing the use of CHIS and other covert policing
techniques, by way of a regular inspection programme. To date OSC annual
reports provide only the total number of CHIS across UK police forces and
does not provided any breakdown of payments made to informants or global
figures about CHIS costs. Furthermore, individuals who have/or continue to
be, a CHIS have the right to request an investigation by the Investigatory
Powers Tribunal (IPT). Where an authority is found to have acted
improperly, appropriate compensation and redress may be sought through the
courts and the authority referred to the OSC. (It is worth noting that the
IPT's activities are protected from disclosure under section 23 of FOIA
2000). The degree of oversight police forces are subject to in this area
weakens the argument that the public need further information to judge the
value and effectiveness of CHIS.

Balancing Test

On balance, if disclosed, it is likely that the future law enforcement
role of the police could be compromised and the public's safety put at
risk. As such, the public interest in disclosing the information is
outweighed by that in maintaining the exemptions listed above. In
addition, any public interest in the use of CHIS is catered for by the
role of the OSC which has a specific statutory duty in this regard.

If you require any clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me on
01786 456774 or Email: [2][email address]

However, if you are not satisfied with the way in which your request has
been handled, you are entitled, in the first instance, to request a Review
of the decisions made. Should you wish to request a Review, please write
to Superintendent Jill Dewar, Professional Standards Department, Central
Scotland Police, Police Headquarters, Randolphfield, Stirling FK8 2HD
within 40 working days of receiving this correspondence.

If, after receiving a response, you remain dissatisfied, you have six
months within which you may Appeal to the Scottish Information
Commissioner who can be contacted at Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes Road, St
Andrews, Fife, KY16 9DS. Phone: 01334 464610 Fax: 01334 464611 or Email
[3][email address] .

Kind regards
Ilene

Freedom of Information Officer
Central Scotland Police
Police Headquarters
Tel: 01786 456000
Fax: 01786 456388
Email: [4][Central Scotland Police request email]

show quoted sections

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Traill,

Please find the acknowledgment to your request for Review attached.

Kind regards
Ilene

Freedom of Information Officer
Central Scotland Police
Police Headquarters
Randolphfield
Stirling FK8 2HD

Tel: 01786 456000
Fax: 01786 456388
Email: [1][Central Scotland Police request email]

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

show quoted sections

PROTECT-MANAGEMENT

PROTECT-MANAGEMENT

Dear Mr Traill

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

In relation to your email received on 29th January, 2010 have reviewed
your request for information in regard to 'Payments to Informants'.

A review has taken place and a decision has been made to uphold the
original decision made by our Force Freedom of Information Officer, for
the information to be refused using the original rationale detailed in the
email sent from our Freedom of Information Officer on 22nd February,
2010. Please find the Review document attached.

If, after receiving a response, you remain dissatisfied, you have six
months within which you may Appeal to the Scottish Information
Commissioner who can be contacted at Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes Road, St
Andrews, Fife, KY16 9DS. Phone: 01334 464610 Fax: 01334 464611 or Email
[1][email address].

Yours sincerely

AUDREY MCLEOD

Chief Inspector

HEAD OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS DEPARTMENT

PROTECT-MANAGEMENT

show quoted sections