IFPI/BPI meetings

David Cook made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Cleveland Police

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Cleveland Police.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I request the dates and durations of all meetings between representatives of Cleveland Police and representatives of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) or the British Phonographic Industry (BPI).

I request this information regarding the time-period from May 2004 until the current date (November 2009).

Yours faithfully,

David Cook

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write in respect of my correspondence of 30th November 2009 requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act.

I note that the request has gone unacknowledged. Nevertheless, it is my belief that you are obliged to respond promptly and by no later than 30th December 2009.

Yours faithfully,

David Cook

Cleveland Police

Dear Mr Cook,

Enquiry Ref : 2009/2208

Please accept my apologies for not acknowledging your request of the 30th of November 2009 requesting information concerning the IFPI and BPI.

As set out by the Freedom of Information Act it will be our aim to respond to your request by as you correctly suggest by 30 December 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.

Upon receiving your request, I initiated enquiries which have so far turned a blank. In order that I may have an opportunity to locate any information should it exist could you please indicate to me as to what area of business within our organisation you believe or would expect this information to concern, so that I can direct my enquiries more effectively?

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

Yours sincerely,

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

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Cleveland Police,

I refer to your correspondence of 4th December 2009.

I am unsure of the clarification that you have requested - The area of business that I would expect this information to concern?

However, I believe that it may be relevant to the following areas:

1. Organised Crime Unit.
2. Police Headquarters.
3. District Support Unit.
4. Middlehaven Police Station.

Unfortunately, the search cannot be limited to the above areas. However, there will have been meetings between the IFPI/BPI and those areas.

Yours faithfully,

David Cook

Cleveland Police

Dear Mr Cook,

Enquiry Ref : 2009/2208

I write in connection with your request for information dated 30 November 2009 concerning IFPI/BPI Meetings.

Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in providing a response to your request; I hope this has not been of inconvenience to you.

Regarding your below request:

I request the dates and durations of all meetings between
representatives of Cleveland Police and representatives of the
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) or the
British Phonographic Industry (BPI).

I request this information regarding the time-period from May 2004
until the current date (November 2009).

And your later helpful clarification/direction:

However, I believe that it may be relevant to the following areas:

1. Organised Crime Unit.
2. Police Headquarters.
3. District Support Unit.
4. Middlehaven Police Station.

Unfortunately, the search cannot be limited to the above areas.
However, there will have been meetings between the IFPI/BPI and those areas.

A result of which, I have ascertained that that we do hold information in relation to your request.However in assessing whether to release information to you and to the world I consider that an exemption to disclosure afforded under the Freedom of information act exists in that Section 30 - Criminal Investigations, needs to be considered.

Under Section 30 - Criminal Investigations - information is exempt information if it has been held at any time for the purpose of an investigation where it is to be ascertained whether or not an individual should be charged with an offence. Information is also exempt if it relates to criminal proceedings which the Force has the power to conduct and also provides an exemption in relation to information which has been obtained by the Force in relation to the subject of your request. This is a class based and qualified-exemption and as such Cleveland Police are not required to carry out a harm test for this exemption, however, the public interest (PIT) factors in relation to the question of disclosure are detailed below.

Public interest For Disclosure

To indicate to the public that Cleveland Police are diligent in there crime enquiries and where necessary record facts of an investigation and to indicate to the public of Cleveland the scope of and organisations with which Cleveland Police will liaise in order to tackle crime and bring offenders to justice.

Public interest For Non-Disclosure

Where a current or future law enforcement role of Cleveland Police is undermined or may be compromised by the release of information. Or any untimely or inappropriate (to the case) disclosure could affect the viability of that case and the well being of people and viability of organisations who rely on the lawful outcome of a case and if the release of information were to allow the continual liberty of one criminal, the effect and implications of their future conduct in relation to society can not be ignored.

Where information is gathered and investigations are conducted it is only right that the people concerned in the judicial process are able to gain information in relation to conducting their defence that is why the Criminal justice system utilises the rules of disclosure to interested parties, it would not therefore be right or proper for another piece of legislation to be used to gain information that is either inappropriate to release to unaffected outside parties or information that would not be available under the disclosure rules. Whilst a case is within the judicial process it would be sub judice to provide information outside the formal disclosure process that could interfere with this process and inappropriately undermine the prosecution case.

It is the Association of Chief Officers (ACPO) view that information relating to investigations will rarely be disclosed under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Whilst such information may be released in order to serve a core policing purpose (i.e. to protect life and property and/or assist in prevention and detection of crime and/or in the apprehension and prosecution of offenders), it will only be disclosed if there are strong public interest considerations favouring disclosure. The further the considerations favouring disclosure are from a tangible community benefit, the lighter the considerations will be. It is my belief that disclosure could undermine any ongoing and future investigations and cause potential damage to the criminal justice process.

Balance:
From the above and the legislation of the FOI Act 2000 in relation to the considered exemption I am directed to consider reasons for and against disclosure not merely a counting up exercise. Importantly there is an assumption that authorities will provide requested information unless an exemption applies and the public interest test favours retention and importantly public interest is not merely what interests/titillates the public or individual requester but rather what will be of greater good, if released, to the community as a whole.

For this exemption to be considered it is not a requirement for the investigation to be 'live' or continuing only that it has at some stage been part of an investigation. Naturally if an investigation/case were to be live the greater the consideration for non disclosure.
The fact that Cleveland Police are able to release in this reply, the fact that they do hold information in relation to this subject somewhat reduces the impact of the argument for disclosure of the finer detail as requested.

Decision: -

On the balance of the public interest test I am of the opinion that the Public interest in maintaining the exemption genuinely outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

On this basis please treat this reply as a refusal to provide the information we hold in relation to your request

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

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Cleveland Police,

With reference to our recent discussions, I believe that your response is unclear.

You mention various possible exemptions. Can you clarify precisely which one you are relying upon?

1.It has been held at any time for the purpose of an investigation where it is to be ascertained whether or not an individual should be charged with an offence?

2. It relates to criminal proceedings which the Force has the power to conduct?

3. It is information which has been obtained by the Force in relation to the subject of the request?

I appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

David Cook

Freedom of Information,

Dear Mr Cook,
I am sorry if you found my reply unclear; to expand. I am relying on
Section 30 of the freedom of Information act which relates to
Investigations and Proceedings conducted by Authorities.

When stating "Under Section 30...." I was not providing a copy of that
section of the act, which would, had I done so, have included
subsections not applicable and so increasing the chance of confusion;
what I was trying to convey was the pieces of that section which were
applicable and in their own right are sufficient for the section to be
relevant.

Therefore for further clarity Section 30 (1) (a) is applicable to "It
has been held at any time for the purpose of an investigation where it
is to be ascertained whether or not an individual should be charged with
an offence"?
Section 30 (1) (c) is applicable to "It relates to criminal proceedings
which the Force has the power to conduct"?
Where I continued "and also provides an exemption in relation to
information which has been obtained by the Force in relation to the
subject of your request". I was reiterating the fact that any
information we held pertaining to your request was held for the
purposes described in section 30 as previously indicated in that
paragraph.

I hope this is of help to you.
Regards,
Jim Conlin

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir