This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Facebook Crime'.




Uned Rhyddid Gwybodaeth/ Freedom of Information Unit 
 
 
 
Response Date:16/06/2011 
 
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. 

 
*2011 
Status 
Offence Type 
2009 
2010 
YTD 
Total 
(79) Perverting the course of justice 




Caution 
(8L) Harassment 




(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 
Charged 
endangering life 




(66) Other offences against the State 
or public order 





(79) Perverting the course of justice 




(8L) Harassment 




(8F) Inflicting grievous bodily harm 
Reprimand ‐ Youth Case 
without intent 




Restorative Resolution ‐ 
(105A) Assault without injury 




Supported 
(79) Perverting the course of justice 




Total 

14 

21 
 
 
 
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. 
 
Balancing Test 
 
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 
crime. 
 
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 
threat ‘critical’.  
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 
themselves  
 
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 
made out. 
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 
not exist. 
 
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