Section 44 authorisations made by Cambridgeshire Constabulary

Dear Ben

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 0260/2009

We acknowledge receipt of your Freedom of Information (FOI) request which
was received by Cambridgeshire Constabulary on 8th May 2009.

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. You will receive a response within the statutory
timescale of twenty working days as defined by the Act. In some
circumstances, we may be unable to achieve this deadline. If this is the
case, you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the earliest
opportunity.

If we require any further clarification regarding this request, you will be
notified.

We would advise you that the nature of certain requests may involve payment
of a fee. If this is the case, you will be notified.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
telephone on 0845 456 456 4 asking for the Information Access Office or
email [Cambridgeshire Constabulary request email]

Regards

David Price
Information Access Office
Cambridgeshire Constabulary

show quoted sections

Dear Ben

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 0260/2009

In reply to your request for information under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000, dated 7th May 2009 and which was received in Cambridgeshire as
follows:

Please could you tell me what areas are the subject of a current
authorisation given by an officer of Cambridgeshire Constabulary under
section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000?

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (The Act) requires us to handle all
requests in a manner that is blind to the identity of the requestor. Any
information released in response to a request is regarded as being
published, and therefore in the public domain without caveat.

We have completed all searches within Cambridgeshire Constabulary and
hereby enclose your response.

Response

Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged
to supply the information you have requested due to exemptions provided by
the Act.

In respect of Section 1(1)(a) of the FOI Act I can confirm that
Cambridgeshire Constabulary do hold information about the granting of
Authorisations under S44 of the Terrorism Act, 2000.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Cambridgeshire
Constabulary, when refusing to provide such information (because the
information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
(a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption in question and (c)
states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The exemptions applicable to the information are:

Section 24(2) National Security

Section 30(3) Investigations

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Section 38(2) Health and Safety

The question asks for information relating to what areas within
Cambridgeshire are currently subject to a S44 authorisation. An
authorisation under S44 of the Terrorism allows police officers to stop and
search any person within a specific area or areas. This authorisation is
given when there is real and specific information that a terrorist attack
is imminent within a defined geographical area and suspends the usual
requirement to have 'grounds' for that search.

Harm Consideration:

To publicise this information through a release under the Freedom of
Information Act would provide those intending to carry out a terrorist
attack vital information as to whether it has been detected in a particular
area and thus to reconsider their strategy and to improve the effectiveness
of their intended actions. To show that such an authority is not in force
would assist in the final stages of planning through the same rationale.
Covert intelligence sources could be also compromised through the
deliberate feeding of mis-information which result in S44 authorisations.
Thus a general release of this type of information has the potential to be
highly dangerous for individuals engaged in this area. In a similar way,
by careful placing of information requests, planners of future attacks
could use intelligence gained to divert attention away from the intended
target, or indeed towards a particular area to gain maximum effect.
Finally, continued monitoring of this type of response would reveal
presently unpublicised police tactical abilities, strengths, response
capability and thus reduce overall effectiveness.

Section 24, Section 30, Section 31 and Section 38 are qualified exemptions
and there is a requirement to consider whether there is any public interest
which may overcome the harm in confirming or denying the existence of such
information.

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST

For Disclosure

Public Awareness and Debate: Disclosure of this information would fuel
public awareness and lead to better informed debate on the issues both of
Terrorism and the powers granted to the police. This may enhance the
reputation of those authorities and lead to greater understanding of the
problems of maintaining good overall security and vigilance.

Public Safety: the protection of Public Safety is of prime importance and
any information which can be used to enhance this safety will always be
considered strongly for release wherever possible. It is clear that the
release of this information would enable members of the public to exercise
more caution in the areas in which S44 authorities have been granted or to
avoid them altogether. Disclosure may also prompt more intelligence
information from members of the public.

Against disclosure

Efficient and Effective Conduct of the Force: as stated in the
declaration of harm given earlier in this document, security operations
would be compromised by the release of this information at a time which is
unfavourable. If the release of information can be controlled by the
terrorists themselves, this would be a very effective tool for them to be
able to deploy.

Flow of Information to the Service: anti-terrorism effectiveness is
largely dependant on the availability of information being provided by many
sources; some of which may be very close to the individuals planning an
activity. To put these sources at risk of discovery by the release of
information would discourage others who may otherwise have been willing to
share knowledge. This would improve the effectiveness of the terrorist
operation.

Interest of 3rd Parties: information and intelligence gathered by third
parties, for example other government bodies, may be compromised by the
release of this information. Other intelligence organisations may be
gathering intelligence at the time that this information is released and
have their operation revealed.

Investigations: S44 authorisations are an important part of the
investigative process and to have information released at the wrong
juncture may impede the process by alerting a suspect to our interest and
thus allowing them greater opportunity to evade.

Public Safety: just as public safety can be seen as a valid reason to
provide the information at this time; it is it’s own counter-argument in
that such safety may be compromised by allowing the information to be
released. If a terrorist is able to control when and where a S44 authority
is engaged and the information published; members of the public may be
‘herded’ into another area by this: this may be the site of the intended
attack or secondary device.

BALANCE TEST

This public interest test must consider the balance between whether the
information should be disclosed or not. To achieve this we must set each
argument against it’s counter and there simply being more arguments for
non-disclosure does not mean that non-disclosure is automatic as each must
be judged on it’s merit.

The greatest argument on either side of the discussion is that of public
safety and it is my consideration that this is a finely balanced one which
nonetheless does fall on the side of non-disclosure since the timing of any
disclosure would be critical in maintaining public safety. Public safety
would best be served by ensuring that our procedures and capabilities are
not compromised by untimely release of information or the giving up the
control of when this is releasable.

The remaining argument for disclosure is that the Public Awareness and
Debate would be served by this release. Set against this, the next
strongest argument against disclosure is: Efficient and effective conduct
of the Service/Force. In this case, it is my view that the argument for
non-disclosure is stronger since it is vital that we remain in control of
our own strategies and not give them up to the terrorist. By releasing
information at a point in time dictatable by others would take that control
away from us.

There being no further arguments for disclosure, it is my decision not to
permit the release of this information. Part of my decision is as a result
of the knowledge that there is annualised data available through our own
website (www.cambs.police.uk) regarding stops and searches and that the
following publications contain further data on stop-searches under Section
44 of the Terrorism Act 2000:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/arrests-r...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/stats-rac...

If you are unhappy with this response, please see the attachment below,
which sets out your rights to appeal.

(See attached file: Complaint Rights.pdf)

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact the Information Access Office via email, or on telephone number
0845 456 456 4 extension 8164.

Regards

David Price
Information Access Office
Cambridgeshire Constabulary

show quoted sections