Performance,
020 7035 4848
Assurance and
(switchboard)
Governance Directorate
www.gov.uk
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Cathy Fox
request-393306-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
25 May 2018
Dear Ms Fox
Freedom of Information request (our ref. 43350): internal review
Thank you for your e-mail of 11 February 2018, in which you requested an internal review
of our response to your Freedom of Information (FoI) request.
I have now completed the review. I have examined the response and I have considered
whether the correct procedures were followed and assessed the reasons behind the
response. I can confirm that I was not involved in the initial handling of your request.
Your request can be viewed at
Annex A and response is at
Annex B. The response
disclosed some of the information to you, but exempted others from disclosure under
sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(b) and 40(2) of the FOI Act.
Your internal review request is at
Annex C, but the crux of your complaint comprised of
three main elements.
You were unhappy with the length of time it took to answer your request.
You also sought clarification on a number of points you felt remained outstanding.
You wanted a review of the redactions made.
I have started with a review of the redactions. Having considered the information in scope
and the redactions made I can confirm that the redacted information has been correctly
withheld. The public interest test arguments explained that there is a “need to avoid any
action which could hamper police investigations and have the effect that offenders are less
likely to be brought to justice.” The Home Office has only withheld information where we
are uncertain whether any investigation is ongoing. Under the Act the Home Office is only
able to consider the information it holds and if we do not have the information we are not
obliged to create new information in order to answer a request. If we are uncertain if an
investigation is ongoing we are not obliged to seek out information to confirm it. The public
interest therefore lies in maintaining the law enforcement exemption in such
circumstances.
The Home Office regrets the length of time it took to answer your request. Our planned
response, which you received, was delayed during the clearance process. The Home
Office wanted to ensure it was answered correctly, but accepts that in this case we took far
too long. We are working to ensure that such delays do not occur in the future.
You also sought the names of the highest level people responsible for the response. One
such individual is Rebecca Egan, Deputy Director. The next most senior individual is
below the grade of Senior Civil Servant and his/her name is therefore exempt under
section 40(2) of the FOI Act. In accordance with previous Information Commissioner
Decision notices and Tribunal decisions, personal information of Civil Servants below the
Senior Civil Servant grade is regarded as exempt.
You also wanted to know why in your words “they illegally chose not to answer”. The
Home Office does not accept that anyone “illegally chose not to answer” as a response
was issued, it was just regrettably late.
You also asked why the Home Office calls the information a non comprehensive and high
level summary. The Home Office has addressed this point previously. As part of the
internal review we carried out for FOI case 36902, you were informed that it was called a
high level summary because “it had been collated from basic information provided by
different police forces and did not contain details of every investigation”. We have no more
to add.
In answer to your final point, whether “the Home Office in the habit of breaking the law as
far as FOI on child sexual abuse? Please answer this under advice and assistance.” The
answer to your question is ‘No’. As we advised previously in this internal review the
response was late due to delays with the clearance process, and at the same time the
Home Office also wanted to be sure your request was answered correctly.
Conclusion
I conclude that the original response was correct, but the Home Office regrets that it was
delayed. This completes the internal review.
Yours sincerely
Martin Riddle
Information Rights Team
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
Annex A – Original request
Dear FOI Responses,
Please provide the previously manually compiled non-comprehensive list of police child
sexual abuse investigations that is no longer current with date of compilation.
Yours sincerely,
Annex B – Response
Dear Ms Fox
Freedom of Information request reference: 43350 Thank you for your e-mail of 28 March 2017, in which you ask for the previously manually
compiled non-comprehensive list of police child sexual abuse investigations that is no
longer current, with date of compilation. Your request has been handled as a request for
information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I am sorry for the delay in
replying.
I am able to disclose most of the information that you have requested. The list, with the
date it was last updated, accompanies this letter. After careful consideration we have
decided that some of the information in the list is exempt from disclosure under sections
31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) of the FOIA. These provide that information can be withheld where
disclosure would be likely to prejudice the prevention and detection of crime (section
31(1)(a)) or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders (section 31(1)(b
The exemptions are engaged, in respect of the information which has been redacted from
the list, because disclosure of this information could prejudice ongoing investigations.
Sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) are qualified exemptions which require a test of the balance
of the public interest. This is provided in the attached Annex.
In addition, some information has been withheld under section 40(2) (personal information)
of the FOIA because it could enable the identification of individual victims. Section 40(2) is
an absolute exemption which does not require a public interest test.
Please note that the list is a snapshot of information available at the time, compiled for
internal purposes only. We cannot guarantee the current accuracy of the information which
it contains.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review
of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to
xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx, quoting reference 43350. If you ask for an internal
review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request would
be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you
were to remain dissatisfied after an internal review, you would have a right of complaint to
the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the FOIA.
Yours sincerely
Safeguarding Unit
Annex - to response letter
Annex: Public interest test in relation to sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b)
Some of the exemptions in the FOI Act, referred to as ‘qualified exemptions’, are subject to
a public interest test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure
against the public interest in favor of withholding the information.
The ‘public interest’ is not the same as what interests the public. In carrying out a PIT we
consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if the information is
released or not. The ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need to enable effective
government and to serve the best interests of the public.
The FOI Act is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the
motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we are
expressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone.
Public interest considerations in favour of disclosing the information
There is a general public interest in openness and transparency. The extent and outcome
of investigations into child sexual abuse is clearly a matter of strong public interest.
Public interest considerations in favour of withholding the information
The above considerations must be balanced against the need to avoid any action which
could hamper police investigations and have the effect that offenders are less likely to be
brought to justice.
Conclusion
The requirement to avoid any prejudice to these investigations is overwhelming and we
conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemptions and
withholding the information which has been redacted from the list.
Date: 31 January 2018
Annex C – Internal Review
Dear Home Office,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's handling of my FOI request
'Summary of current child sexual abuse operations'.
Thankyou for your eventual reply after way over 2 years - see 2015 Sept 23 WDTK FOI to
Home Office
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/summary_of_current_child_sexual#outgoing-
700075
and 2017 Mar 4 WDTK FOI request to Home Office
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/summary_of_current_child_sexual#outgoing-
629886. You only replied when you were threatened by the ICO with a contempt of court. Although
you offered a very brief apology. This is unacceptable to not reply for so long and not
even offer an explanation, please detail why you did not reply for so long.
There is suspicion of course that the Home Office are trying to hide past child abuse of
their own and such a length delay only feeds into this concern.
Please also tell me who were the highest level people responsible for answering the 2
requests and why they they illegally chose not to answer. You still have not addressed this
point which was part of my question
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/summary_of_current_child_sexual#outgoing-
725277
I also asked "However please could you explain why you call it non comprehensive and
high level summary, with the answer to my request, so that I may understand the
terminology used." please address this point.
Is the Home Office in the habit of breaking the law as far as FOI on child sexual abuse?
Please answer this under advice and assistance.
I must also ask for an internal review on the redaction.
"Public interest considerations in favour of disclosing the information There is a general
public interest in openness and transparency. The extent and outcome of investigations
into child sexual abuse is clearly a matter of strong public interest.
Public interest considerations in favour of withholding the information The above
considerations must be balanced against the need to avoid any action which could hamper
police investigations and have the effect that offenders are less likely to be brought to
justice.
Conclusion
The requirement to avoid any prejudice to these investigations is overwhelming and we
conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemptions and
withholding the information which has been redacted from the list"
I do not believe that there is any prejudice to the operations by mentioning the names of
thsoe operations, which after all are randomly generated. Furthermore some operations
are obviously over eg Patrick Rock, how could that prejudice the operations? Please
explain I do not believe your Public Interest test is thorough enough.
Please release all information from operations that have finished and all operation names
and police forces involved
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this
address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/summary_of_current_child_sexual
Yours faithfully,
Annex D – Complaints procedure
This completes the internal review process by the Home Office. If you remain dissatisfied
with the response to your FoI request, you have the right of complaint to the Information
Commissioner at the following address:
The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF