Arrest of Mr Darren Brady and the recording of non-crime hate incidents

The request was successful.

Dear Hampshire Constabulary,

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...

The recent article in the Daily Mail online linked above recounts the arrest of Mr Darren Brady and I would be grateful if you would supply the following information.

1. Videos of the incident shows that Mr Brady was arrested and handcuffed with an attending officer informing Mr Brady that he had caused a complainant ‘anxiety’. Exactly what offence was Mr Brady actually arrested for, given that, to my knowledge, ‘causing anxiety’ is not (yet) a crime in the United Kingdom?

2. Did the complaint come from an individual, an organisation or a person indicating that they represented a specific organisation?

3. Please supply full details of the complaint, including identifying the source thereof, in so far as this can be done within your duties to safeguard personal information under Data Protection legislation. You should supply such information with the minimum amount of redaction required.

4. Who made the operational decision to pursue an arrest of Mr Brady and why was he targeted for retweeting a meme when the original tweeter was not?

5. The article states that Mr Brady was offered the ‘opportunity’ to attend a ‘course’, which would have prevented his arrest by downgrading his behaviour from a crime to, presumably, a non-crime incident.
a) Is this correct?
b) At the time this ‘offer’ was made, was Mr Brady advised of his rights and told exactly what crime he would be arrested for.
c) What organisation runs this ‘education course’ and what materials are used within it?
d) If this course is run by the police force itself, does it employ outside individuals to present it or contribute to it? If so, from what organisation are those individuals and/or any associated materials drawn.

6. The article states that even if Mr Brady had accepted the ‘offer’ of attending the ‘course’, the reduced ‘recording’ would be contained in any DBS check, be that basic, standard or enhanced. Is this an accurate reflection of Hampshire’s recording and disclosure practices?

7. What measures has Hampshire Police put in place to ensure that all officers fully understand the updated College of Policing guidance on the investigation and recording of non-crime hate incidents?

Yours faithfully,

MJ Lugsdin

FOI Mailbox,

Your e-mail has been forwarded to the Public Access Office which now
provides a gateway relating to requests for access to police information
and related enquiries. This includes requests/enquiries in connection with
the Data Protection Act 2018 and Freedom of Information Act 2000.
 
You will receive a response in due course.
 

show quoted sections

PUBLIC ACCESS Mailbox,

1 Attachment

Dear MJ Lugsdin,

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: HC/2035/22

 

The following request for information under the Freedom of Information Act
was received by the Public Access office at Hampshire Constabulary on the
date listed above:

 

The recent article in the Daily Mail online linked above recounts the
arrest of Mr Darren Brady and I would be grateful if you would supply the
following information.

 

1. Videos of the incident shows that Mr Brady was arrested and handcuffed
with an attending officer informing Mr Brady that he had caused a
complainant ‘anxiety’. Exactly what offence was Mr Brady actually arrested
for, given that, to my knowledge, ‘causing anxiety’ is not (yet) a crime
in the United Kingdom?

 

2. Did the complaint come from an individual, an organisation or a person
indicating that they represented a specific organisation?

 

3. Please supply full details of the complaint, including identifying the
source thereof, in so far as this can be done within your duties to
safeguard personal information under Data Protection legislation. You
should supply such information with the minimum amount of redaction
required.

 

4. Who made the operational decision to pursue an arrest of Mr Brady and
why was he targeted for retweeting a meme when the original tweeter was
not?

 

5. The article states that Mr Brady was offered the ‘opportunity’ to
attend a ‘course’, which would have prevented his arrest by downgrading
his behaviour from a crime to, presumably, a non-crime incident.

          a) Is this correct?

          b) At the time this ‘offer’ was made, was Mr Brady advised of
his rights and told exactly           what crime he would be arrested for.

          c) What organisation runs this ‘education course’ and what
materials are used within it?

          d) If this course is run by the police force itself, does it
employ outside individuals to present it or contribute to it? If so, from
what organisation are those individuals and/or any associated materials
drawn.

 

6. The article states that even if Mr Brady had accepted the ‘offer’ of
attending the ‘course’, the reduced ‘recording’ would be contained in any
DBS check, be that basic, standard or enhanced. Is this an accurate
reflection of Hampshire’s recording and disclosure practices?

 

7. What measures has Hampshire Police put in place to ensure that all
officers fully understand the updated College of Policing guidance on the
investigation and recording of non-crime hate incidents?

 

Your request will be considered in accordance with the legislation and you
will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days,
subject to the provisions of the Act.  In the unlikely event that
Hampshire Constabulary is unable to meet the 20 working day deadline, you
will be informed as soon as possible and given a revised time-scale for
response.

 

To be accepted, any clarification(s) to your request must be submitted in
writing directly to the Public Access team at Hampshire Constabulary. 

If your request requires either full or partial transference to another
public authority, you will be informed.  Should you have any further
enquiries concerning this matter, please write to Public Access quoting
the reference above.

 

Regards

 

S Adcock | Public Access Assistant

Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley
Police

Address: Hampshire Constabulary, Mottisfont Court, Tower Street,
Winchester, Hampshire SO23 8ZD.

 

Information Management Helpdesk:

Hampshire :[1][email address]

Thames Valley: [2][email address]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Daily Mail 7/8/22:

'A hate crime awareness course that gave alleged offenders arrested for activities such as sharing a tweet the chance to avoid prosecution has been scrapped by a police chiefs.

Hampshire Constabulary was among three forces in the country that ran the two-hour educational sessions for people accused of racism, sexism, misogyny and transphobia.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...

Dear PUBLIC ACCESS Mailbox,

You have failed to provide the information requested by me under the FOI Act within the statutory time limit. Please now respond forthwith.

Yours sincerely,

MJ Lugsdin

PUBLIC ACCESS Mailbox,

Dear MJ Lugsdin

Apologies for the delay in our response, we are currently experiencing high work volumes.

Your request is being processed and we will aim to provide you with a response within the next 14 days.

Kind Regards

S Carr | Public Access Manager
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley Police
Address | Hampshire Constabulary, Mottisfont Court, Tower Street, Winchester, Hampshire, SO23 8ZD

Information Management Helpdesk:
Hampshire [email address]
Thames Valley [email address]

show quoted sections

PUBLIC ACCESS Mailbox,

1 Attachment

 

 

S Carr | Public Access Manager
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley
Police
Address | Hampshire Constabulary, Mottisfont Court, Tower Street,
Winchester, Hampshire, SO23 8ZD

 

Information Management Helpdesk:

Hampshire        [1][email address]

Thames Valley   [2][email address]

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]

J Roberts left an annotation ()

'6. The article states that even if Mr Brady had accepted the ‘offer’ of attending the ‘course’, the reduced ‘recording’ would be contained in any DBS check, be that basic, standard or enhanced. Is this an accurate reflection of Hampshire’s recording and disclosure practices?'

This part of your request - a very important part - has been sidestepped with:

'In relation to Q6, information relating to the DBS process can be found at the below link;

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

Can it? Elsewhere Hampshire Constabulary have responded:

'3. information held as this does not show up on a Basic (DBS) check.'

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...

What about the other three checks, which only Registered Bodies can request?

Dear Hampshire Constabulary,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Hampshire Constabulary's handling of my FOI request 'Arrest of Mr Darren Brady and the recording of non-crime hate incidents'.

I have given your response to my FOI request detailed consideration. I do not accept that you have adequately dealt with my request.

You have not addressed question 2 at all. It is not requesting the disclosure of the name of any individual or organisation so cannot be covered by any exemption under the FOI Act.

Similarly, you have not properly addressed question 3, either by supplying a detailed answer or disclosing redacted material.

You have not addressed any part of question 4.

Your response to question 5 is completely inadequate. It fails to deal at all with 5a , 5b or 5d. With respect to 5c, whilst you have said who funds the course, you have not said from whom the course was commissioned. You have not supplied any materials or relevant information about the course.

Your response to question 6 is inadequate. I did not ask for general information about the DBS system. I asked for specific comment upon the article and the claims therein related to the specific incident involved and your approach to the issue in this specific case.

Your response to question 7 is inadequate. It is obvious from the question that it is expected that officers SHOULD refer to the new interim guidance. My question was about what measures you have put in place to ensure that officers fully understand it, given that this entire episode appears to be evidence that they do not.

Please rectify these errors and omissions.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

Yours faithfully,

MJ Lugsdin

FOI Mailbox,

Your e-mail has been forwarded to the Public Access Office which now
provides a gateway relating to requests for access to police information
and related enquiries. This includes requests/enquiries in connection with
the Data Protection Act 2018 and Freedom of Information Act 2000.
 
You will receive a response in due course.
 

show quoted sections

PUBLIC ACCESS Mailbox,

Dear Mr Lugsdin,

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

 

I refer to your email dated onto the 16 October 2022 requesting that
Hampshire Constabulary review the response to your request for information
under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

The internal review will be conducted by Jason Russell, Senior Public
Access Manager and a response will be issued to you within 20 working
days.

 

Should you have any further queries in the meantime, please do not
hesitate to contact this unit quoting the above reference number.

 

Kind Regards

 

S Adcock | Public Access Assistant

Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley
Police

Address: Hampshire Constabulary, Mottisfont Court, Tower Street,
Winchester, Hampshire SO23 8ZD.

 

Information Management Helpdesk:

Hampshire :[1][email address]

Thames Valley: [2][email address]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]

PUBLIC ACCESS Mailbox,

1 Attachment

J Roberts left an annotation ()

The Rt Hon Chris Philp MP 13/4/23:

'We are also making clear frivolous allegations of criminal offences should not be recorded as a criminal offence unless a criminal threshold has clearly been met. We don’t think being rude or insulting is a police matter. Officers are not the thought police. And where something is reported and it doesn’t meet that clear criminal threshold, we don’t want that being investigated or to be recorded as a crime, we don’t want to waste police time on that kind of thing. We will very shortly be publishing guidance clarifying where that threshold should sit.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/c...