Uned Rhyddid Gwybodaeth/ Freedom of Information Unit
2011/263 – Crime statistics – Facebook crime
In response to your recent request for information regarding;
I would like to know how many reports of crime have been made which
in some way relate to the internet site facebook.
2009 – 16 crimes
2010 – 35 crimes
2011 – 18 crimes (YTD up to and including 30/04/11)
I would also like a breakdown of the nature of these crimes (ie were they
complaints of harassment, assault, sexual offences, theft, burglary etc) and
whether they resulted in convictions.
Can I have this information separately for 2009, 2010 and so far this year please.
(79) Perverting the course of justice
(9A) Public fear, alarm or distress
(105A) Assault without injury
(20A) Sexual assault on a female
aged 13 and over
(5A) Wounding or carrying out an act
(66) Other offences against the State
or public order
(79) Perverting the course of justice
(8F) Inflicting grievous bodily harm
Reprimand ‐ Youth Case
Restorative Resolution ‐
(105A) Assault without injury
(79) Perverting the course of justice
Restorative Resolutions (RR) uses restorative processes to allow persons aged 10 years and
over to apologise, compensate or offer reparation for committing an offence and to take
responsibility for their actions, as soon as possible following the offence. This could be at
the scene or other suitable location.
RR is intended to be a quick and proportionate response to low level offending and should,
in the main, be dealt with on the street without the need for an arrest.(This does not
preclude their use as a Custody disposal however).
Restorative resolutions are not criminal convictions and their details do not appear on the
Police National Computer. Their details only appear on North Wales Police local systems.
RR can be issued if the authorised officer believes that:
• A person has committed an offence suitable for RR.
• The person is aged 10 years and above.
• The person has not received any other form of disposal (including PND).
• The person has had a previous RR (but not in the previous 12 months) and it was
their only offence – authority from supervisor required.
• The person has a conviction (but not in the past 24 months) provided they have not
served a custodial sentence – authority from supervisor required.
In exceptional circumstances when the above conditions are not met or it is an
excluded offence, an RR can be issued if authorised by an Inspector who must record
his/her rationale for authorising the RR.
A Public Interest Test has been carried out to weigh up the reasons for and against
disclosure of some of the details contained within the information requested, to ensure the
release is in the interest of the public as a whole and not just the applicant. The Public Interest Test has considered the following exemptions;
FOI Section 30 - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities- A Qualified
and Class Based Exemption. Public Interest Test
Under section 30 (1) information is exempt if it has been held by a public authority at any
time for the purposes of-
(a) Any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view of it
being ascertained (i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or (ii)
whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it.
(b) Any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may
lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the
authority had the power to conduct, or
(c) Any criminal proceedings, which the authority has the power to conduct.
Public interest test favouring disclosure:
The public may have interest in matters of this description, such as, how an investigation is
carried out. Release of this information could also give the public satisfaction that the
investigation has been conducted properly and public funds are being spent efficiently.
Public interest test considerations favouring non-disclosure:
It is rare that details of an investigation will be disclosed as to do so will invariably release
personal information, law enforcement techniques and in the case of uncompleted cases
potentially damage the criminal justice process. If North Wales Police were to release the
information requested with regards to the ongoing investigation the right to a fair trial
would be undermined, and therefore the investigation would be prejudiced.
The public interest test is not what interests the public, but a test of whether the community
benefit of possession of the information outweighs the potential harm.
North Wales Police encourage openness and transparency however, this request asks for
information which could relate to an ongoing investigation, therefore to provide further
information could jeopardise the case and reduce the right to a fair trial. At this time the
potential harm to any investigation which the North Wales Police has conducted outweighs
any public benefit in knowing any further details regarding the information requested.
We can also neither confirm nor deny information is held by virtue of the below exemptions:
Section 23 (5) – Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security bodies
Section 24 (2) – National security
Section 31 (3) – Law enforcement
Section 30 (3) – Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities
Section 23 is an absolute class-based exemption and therefore there is no requirement to
conduct a harm or public interest test.
Sections 24, and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to
articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as
well as carrying out a public interest test.
Section 30 is a qualified class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a
public interest test.
Overall harm for partial NCND
In order to counter criminal and terrorist behaviour it is vital that the police and other
agencies have the ability to work together, where necessary covertly, in order to obtain
intelligence within current legislative frameworks to ensure the successful arrest and
prosecution of those who commit or plan to commit acts of terrorism. In order to achieve
this goal, it is vitally important that information sharing takes place with other police forces
and security bodies within the UK and Internationally in order to support counter-terrorism
measures in the fight to deprive international terrorist networks of their ability to commit
It should be recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and
unpredictable. The UK faces a serious and sustained threat from violent extremists and this
threat is greater in scale and ambition than any of the terrorist threats in the past. Since
2006, the UK Government have published the threat level, based upon current intelligence
and that threat has remained at the second highest level, ‘severe’, except for two short
periods during August 2006 and June and July 2007, when it was raised to the highest
The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built and the
police have a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those responsible for
committing crime or those that plan to commit crime. To do this the police require evidence
and that evidence can come from a number of sources, some of which is obtained through
covert means. Having obtained sufficient evidence offenders are charged with offences and
placed before the courts. By confirming or denying that any other information pertinent to
this request exists could directly influence the stages of that process, and jeopardise current
investigations or prejudice law enforcement.
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 both
national security and law enforcement.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S24 –The public are entitled to know how public
funds are spent and by confirming or denying when and how social networks are used by
the police service could lead to a better-informed public that can take steps to protect
Factors against confirmation or denial for S24 – By confirming or denying that any other
information relevant to the request exists would render Security measures less effective.
This could lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or
infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying when or how the
police service monitor social network sites, would enable the public to see where public
funds are being spent. Better public awareness may reduce crime or lead to more
information from the public.
Factors against confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying that any other
information relevant to the request exists, law enforcement tactics could be compromised
which could hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime could be committed
and individuals placed at risk.
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S30 - By confirming or denying when or how the
police service monitor social network sites, would enable the public to obtain satisfaction
that all investigations are conducted properly and that their public money is well spent.
Factors against confirmation or denial for S30 - By confirming or denying that any other
information relevant to the request exists, would hinder the prevention or detection of
crime, undermine the partnership approach to law enforcement , which would subsequently
affect the force’s future law enforcement capabilities.
Balance test - The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service
will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so could undermine National
Security or compromise law enforcement. 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 engaging with the threat posed by the criminal
fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and
the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and
balanced in matters of national security this will only be overridden in exceptional
circumstances. Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for
confirming or denying whether any other information relevant to your request exists is not
There is also no requirement to satisfy any public concern over the legality of police
operations and the tactics we may or may not use. The force is already held to account by
statute, for example the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act and independent bodies such as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of
Constabulary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Our accountability is
therefore not enhanced by confirming or denying that any other information is held.
None of the above can be viewed as an inference that any other information does or does
Therefore, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a
Refusal Notice under section 17 (1) of the legislation
THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST UNDER THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000, AND IS CORRECT AS AT 09/06/2011