c/o PO BOX 481
Fareham
Hampshire
PO14 9FS
Tel: 02380 478922
Email:
xxxx.xxx.xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxxxxx.xx
06/02/2019
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NUMBER: 013/19
Thank you for your request for information regarding the Hunting Act which has now been
considered.
Applicant Question:
1. Please can you tell me when your “What is Wildlife Crime” statement was last updated?
2. Please can you say on what grounds Fox Hunting, Stag Hunting and Hunting Bards with
Beagles are not included as post the Hunting Act they are now surely a crime against
wildlife?
3. Given hunts are pretty much ignoring the ban and often block badger setts with very few
police forces interested in proactively monitoring hunts or even training officers please can
you tell me if you have sent any generic advice to police forces about the policing of hunts?
If so, what is it please? Was this to all forces?
4. Finally, I notice poaching is a current priority, surely illegal hunting IS basically poaching in
another form. Do you plan to include prioritise illegal hunting in the future?
NPCC Response:
Following the dissolution of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which included some
national policing units, designation under the Freedom of Information Act did not automatically
transfer across to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).
On 22/11/2018 the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) became formally subject to the Freedom
of Information Act as an independent body. This did not include the National Wildlife Crime Unit
(NWCU).
For these reasons it is important that you understand that not being bound by the legislation means
that the NPCC cannot apply exemptions to disclosure or engage the fees regulations on their behalf
and there is no recourse from the applicant’s perspective to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
It is the intention of the NPCC to comply with the spirit of the legislation on behalf of the NWCU,
whilst a more formal, legislatively compliant resolution can be agreed.
1st Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN T 020 7084 8950 F 020 7084 8951
If the NWCU were bound by legislation, your request would have been responded to in the following
way:
Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the NPCC, when refusing to provide
information by way of exemption, to provide you with a notice which, (a) states that fact, (b) specifies
the exemption in question, and (c) states why the exemption applies. In accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice for parts of your request.
The NWCU does not hold information captured by part 1 of your request. The NWCU does not hold
a record which details a date of when the “What is Wildlife Crime’ statement was updated on the
NWCU website. I can confirm that the website was launched on 03/06/2013.
The NWCU does not hold information captured by part 2 of your request. The Freedom of
Information legislation relates to recorded information only. It does not cover thoughts and/or
opinion (unless they are recorded). To assist you however, the NWCU website section on “What is
Wildlife Crime” states that “Wildlife crime is any action which contravenes current legislation
governing the protection of the UK’s wild animals and plants”. This would include Fox, Stag, Deer
and Bard Hunting as they come under the Hunting Act 2004, which prohibits all hunting of wild
mammals with dogs in England and Wales. The Hunting Act covers the hunting of Fox, Deer, Hare
and Mink, and also bans Hare Coursing.
The NWCU does hold information captured by part 3 of your above request.
Section 31 Law Enforcement – the legislation:
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of Section 30 is exempt information
if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to prejudice-
(a) The prevention or detection of crime
(b) The apprehension or prosecution of offenders
Some email addresses are contained within the correspondence and disclosure of direct contact
details would enable an individual, intent on committing an offence to make contact with the
department, pose as a police officer or member of police staff and try to glean information which
would assist in their offending behaviour.
Disclosing information which may place the public at risk, or make it easier for crime to be committed
cannot be in the public interest.
The police service primary performance indicator is the reduction of crime, and disclosure which has
a negative impact on that agenda affects public trust in policing and in this case may make it more
difficult to police.
With regard the evidence of harm itself, there is a threshold that requires the predicted issues to be
‘more than likely’. In the case of an offender identifying full investigative techniques or gleaning
information which would assist in offending behaviour can be difficult to establish and evidence the
harm without actually disclosing exempt information. However, the principles are well established
in terms of Freedom of Information legislation that to a certain extent the professional opinion of
the police must be taken into account.
In addition some of the information contained with the papers provides information in relation to
police tactics, covert capabilities and resources. Section 31 is a qualified and prejudice-based
exemption. This requires the production of evidence of what prejudice may be caused and
consideration as to the public interest in disclosure.
Disclosure of this information would enable those with criminal intent to target specific areas of the
UK to conduct their criminal or terrorist activities. This would also enable criminals to take measures
to counteract the tactical capabilities of police forces.
Disclosure of this information would have the likelihood of identifying specific vulnerabilities, which
would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and future prosecutions. Any information
identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal
organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will
adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on law enforcement. Public safety would
be put at risk if criminals were able to counteract police tactics. The NWCU is committed to
demonstrating proportionality and accountability.
Any information that could impact or undermine ongoing investigations or any future investigations
would enable targeted individuals / groups to become tactically aware of the police capabilities. This
would help subjects and avoid detection, and inhibit the prevention and detection of crime.
The NWCU will not disclose information which may hinder the effective management of law
enforcement or place staff or officers at risk. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of
policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and
effectively managing this area of policing, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the
tactical abilities.
The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built and the police
service have a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those responsible for committing crime
or those that plan to commit crime. Disclosure of information captured by this request could directly
influence the stages of that process, and jeopardise current investigations or prejudice law
enforcement.
The lack of the enhancement to the public debate that the redacted points produce, coupled with
the risks leave me in no doubt that the balance, at this time lies in non-disclosure.
The NWCU does not hold information captured by your request. The NWCU held no record which
details plans to include prioritise illegal hunting in the future, at the time of your request. In wishing
to assist you, I can provide the following information which you may find helpful:
The NWCU has limited resources and, accordingly, has to focus its efforts to gain maximum impact.
The decision on which areas are made UK wide priorities is taken via the UK Tasking & Coordination
Group (UKTCG) for wildlife crime. The NWCU prepare a two-yearly Strategic Assessment, which is
presented to the UKTCG. The UKTCG, which is chaired by the Chief Constable of Wildlife Crime lead,
then decide upon the UK wildlife crime priority areas. The priority areas are the ones which have
been assessed as posing the greatest current threat to either the conservation status of a species or
which show the highest volume and therefore they are those that are assessed as requiring an
immediate UK-wide tactical response.
In relation to the conservation status of a species, the NWCU are informed by the wildlife crime
Conservation Advisory Group who will recommend priorities based upon their assessment of the
conservation importance of species and habitats and the importance of enforcement intervention.
In relation to the prioritisation of non-conservation issues, the NWCU measure volume of intelligence
received from police forces and partner agencies. Stag and Deer Hunting are already included under
the UK Wildlife Priority for Poaching, due to the high volumes of intelligence received. The NWCU
do not currently receive high volumes of intelligence on Fox Hunting.
In addition, wildlife crime (including Fox Hunting) are non-notifiable and non-recordable crimes at
this time. There is currently a scoping exercise being conducted by the Home Office to assess if
wildlife crimes should become notifiable and recordable. If they become recordable in the future,
NWCU will assess priorities based on measurement of recorded crime.
Yours sincerely
Sherry Traquair
NPCC Freedom of Information Officer & Decision Maker
www.npcc.police.uk
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
Internal Review
If you are dissatisfied with the response you have been provided with, in compliance with the
Freedom of Information legislation, you can lodge a complaint with NPCC to have the decision
reviewed within 20 working days of the date of this response. The handling of your request will be
looked at by someone independent of the original decision, and a fresh response provided.
It would be helpful, if requesting a review, for you to articulate in detail the reasons you are not
satisfied with this reply.
If you would like to request a review, please write or send an email to NPCC Freedom of Information,
c/o PO Box 481, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 9FS.