Stop and search, and designated areas covering Pontypridd Train Station

Dear Sir

In respect of your request dated 4^th February 2010 asking

(1) How many times, during the year 2009, has an area been designated
under either act, which would have allowed passengers arriving and exiting
Pontypridd Train station, to be searched without reasonable suspicion.

(2) How many times, during the year 2009, have Police Officers carried out
specific stop and search operations at Pontypridd Train Station.

British Transport Police respond as follows. In accordance with section 1
(1) (a) of the Act BTP's response is provided below;

British Transport Police can advise you that their were no Section 60
authorities issued in respect of Pontypridd station during 2009.

In respect of your second question there was only one planned operation at
Pontypridd station during 2009.

British Transport Police have decided that it will neither confirm or deny
whether or not a Section 44 authority was in existence at any time in 2009
covering Pontypridd station.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires BTP, when
refusing to provide the information requested, to serve you 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. This email serves as the notice.

The information is exempt by virtue of the following:

Section 24(1) National Security,

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement and

Section 38(1) Health and Safety.

Sections 24, 31 and 38 are prejudice based qualified exemptions meaning
there is a requirement to evidence the harm in disclosure as well as
taking into account the public interest in disclosure.

Harm and Public Interest Considerations

Section 24

Terrorist activity within the United Kingdom is a real and current threat
and the Police Service has a duty of care to protect the public they
serve. To identify the locations where Section 44 Authorisations have
been or are in place would reveal sensitive tactical information.

Factors favouring Disclosure

By identifying specific locations which are subject to Section 44
authorisations would provide a better awareness to the public to enable
them to take steps in order to protect themselves.

Factors favouring Non-disclosure

Whilst there is a public interest in providing reassurance that the Police
Service is appropriately and effectively dealing with threats posed by
terrorist attack, there is a strong public interest in safeguarding
national security. Any disclosure has the potential to undermine ongoing
and future operations to protect the security of the United Kingdom which
would significantly increase the risk of harm to the community at large.

Section 31

The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and
detecting crime and protecting the passengers who use public transport.
Modern-day policing is intelligence led through liaison with other
agencies and the community at large. Section 44 authorisations are
identified by police forces using up-to-date intelligence. To identify the
specific location where these authorisations are or have been active would
reveal sensitive information concerning current policing operations to
interested parties, and enable any terrorist organisation to map such
activity and subsequently allow them to operate outside of those
particular areas.

Factors Favouring Disclosure

It could be argued that the transparency of anti-terror operations would
provide a greater awareness to the public which may lead to more
information (intelligence) being submitted to the Police Service.

Factors Favouring Non-disclosure

Anti-terror investigations and operations are a highly sensitive areas of
policing. As evidenced within the harm above, to identify the exact
location of these authorisations would seriously hinder the prevention or
detection of crime. If an ongoing anti-terror operation is compromised
this would lead to a further impact on police resources as there would be
a requirement for further manpower to be utilised in order to take steps
to continue with the planned operation. As stated above anti-terror
investigations would rely on intelligence received from the community and
other organisations. Disclosure would seriously undermine the partnership
approach to law enforcement.

Section 38

When Section 38 is engaged there must be `actual' evidence of the harm
that can be caused. To disclose information that undermines the
operational integrity of anti-terror operations will adversely affect
public safety. Examples of this are the events of 7th July 2005 and the
failed attempts in London and Glasgow on 30th June 2006, which were
clearly aimed at people using public transport.

Balancing Test

Public safety and the security of the country is of paramount importance
and the Police Service will not divulge information if to do so would
adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both National
Security and effective law enforcement. Therefore, at this moment in
time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for
disclosure is not made out.

The evidence supporting Section 44 authorisations are identified by police
forces using up-to-date intelligence. To identify the specific location
where these authorisations are or have been active would reveal sensitive
information concerning current policing operations to interested parties,
and enable any terrorist organisation to map such activity and
subsequently allow them to operate outside of those particular areas.

As laid down in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 you have the right to
ask British Transport Police to carry out an internal review if you are
not happy with the reply you have received. Should you wish to invoke
such a review please make you request to me stating what you would like
BTP to review. Although there is no set timescale laid down in the Act
for internal reviews, BTP aim to respond within 20 days, however, in more
complex cases this may take longer. If this is the case you will be
advised of the likely timescales involved.

If after the review is complete you are still not happy with BTP's
response you will then have the right to lodge a complaint with the
Information Commissioner's Office.

The Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House

Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Tel: 01625 545700
Fax: 01625 524510

Website: http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Regards

Brian Coleman BA MSc

Information Standards Manager, Professional Standards Dept.

British Transport Police, FHQ, 25 Camden Road, London, NW1 9LN

office 020 7830 6751

mobile 0788 050 3079

fax 020 7023 6953

email [email address]

www.btp.police.uk

show quoted sections