Dear Cleveland Police,

I would like to know statistics on child abuse accusations. Please go back as far as possible as costs dictate, however I would like to see stats for at least 4 years if this is possible.

1. How many complaints have you had from parents or guardians that social services lied to cover up child abuse accusations? What I mean by lie is mislead others, supress or falsify evidence, intimidate witnesses or any other misdemeanours that would be considered to pervert the course of justice to protect a suspected paedophile. Please name the councils.

2. How many complaints have you had from professionals that social services lied to cover up child abuse accusations? What I mean by lie is misled others, supress or falsify evidence, intimidate witnesses or any other misdemeanours that would be considered to pervert the course of justice to protect a suspected paedophile. Please elaborate what agency or profession the professional(s) were in. Please name the councils.

3. How many “cover up” of child abuse investigations (detailed in 1 & 2 above) have you investigated and outcomes?

4. How many “cover up” of child abuse investigations (detailed in 1 & 2 above) have you refused to investigate and reasons why?

5. How many “cover up” of child abuse investigations (detailed in 1 & 2 above) have you investigated half-heartedly? What I mean by half-heartedly is mislead the complainant that an investigation took place but in fact no or little investigation took place.

6. How many complaints to yourself, Professional Standards, IOPC or judicial reviews have you had pertaining to Q5 above? Please provide outcomes.

7. How many investigations have your force had from external police forces against your force or individual officers within your force pertaining to cover up or sabotage of child abuse investigations? Please list outcomes and list the referral of each investigation.

8. How many instructions to investigate have you had from agencies such as the Home Office forcing you to investigate when you force has previously refused, investigated or conducted a half-heartedly investigation. Please list where each referral came from.

9. How many child abuse investigations referrals have you been given and out of these how many were referred to CPS for review / guidance /and / or prosecution?

10. Referring back to Q1 & 2, How many “coverup of child abuse investigations referrals have you been given and out of these how many were referred to CPS for review / guidance / and / or prosecution?

11. How many officers that were employed by your force have been or currently on the sex offender’s register. Please supply rank and if it is in the public domain, the name of the officer.

Yours faithfully,

Charles Brennan

Freedom of Information, Cleveland Police

This mailbox is for Freedom of Information requests only and all other
mail will be deleted unactioned.

 

For Legal please forward your e-mail to
[1][email address] and for Subject Access please
check the Subject Access section of the Cleveland Police website under the
heading of ‘Advice and Information’ or forward your e-mail to
[2][email address] for all other
enquiries please contact Cleveland Police via 101.

 

References

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

Freedom of Information, Cleveland Police

Dear Mr Brennan,

Enquiry Reference: 12196/2020

I write in connection with regards to your request for information dated 28th August 2020 and received in this office on that date. Please accept our sincere apologies for the late response, your patience is very much appreciated. Below are the questions raised in your request and our response.

I would like to know statistics on child abuse accusations. Please go back as far as possible as costs dictate, however I would like to see stats for at least 4 years if this is possible.
1. How many complaints have you had from parents or guardians that social services lied to cover up child abuse accusations? What I mean by lie is mislead others, supress or falsify evidence, intimidate witnesses or any other misdemeanours that would be considered to pervert the course of justice to protect a suspected paedophile. Please name the councils.
2. How many complaints have you had from professionals that social services lied to cover up child abuse accusations? What I mean by lie is misled others, supress or falsify evidence, intimidate witnesses or any other misdemeanours that would be considered to pervert the course of justice to protect a suspected paedophile. Please elaborate what agency or profession the professional(s) were in. Please name the councils.
3. How many “cover up” of child abuse investigations (detailed in 1 & 2 above) have you investigated and outcomes?
4. How many “cover up” of child abuse investigations (detailed in 1 & 2 above) have you refused to investigate and reasons why?
5. How many “cover up” of child abuse investigations (detailed in 1 & 2 above) have you investigated half-heartedly? What I mean by half-heartedly is mislead the complainant that an investigation took place but in fact no or little investigation took place.
6. How many complaints to yourself, Professional Standards, IOPC or judicial reviews have you had pertaining to Q5 above? Please provide outcomes.
7. How many investigations have your force had from external police forces against your force or individual officers within your force pertaining to cover up or sabotage of child abuse investigations? Please list outcomes and list the referral of each investigation.
8. How many instructions to investigate have you had from agencies such as the Home Office forcing you to investigate when you force has previously refused, investigated or conducted a half-heartedly investigation. Please list where each referral came from.
9. How many child abuse investigations referrals have you been given and out of these how many were referred to CPS for review / guidance /and / or prosecution?
10. Referring back to Q1 & 2, How many “coverup of child abuse investigations referrals have you been given and out of these how many were referred to CPS for review / guidance / and / or prosecution?
11. How many officers that were employed by your force have been or currently on the sex offender’s register. Please supply rank and if it is in the public domain, the name of the officer.
a) Having looked at and considered the content of your request Cleveland Police would rely upon the following;

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

We have made protracted enquiries within the force re questions 1 – 5 ( Child Abuse and Vulnerable Adults, Safeguarding, Legal and Standards and Ethics) in relation to reports made about parents or guardians that social services have mislead others, supressed or falsified evidence, intimidated witnesses or any other actions that would be considered to pervert the course of justice to protect a suspect of wrongdoing and must advise that each case would be recorded in the name of the person making the report not by the subject matter and the offence could have been recorded as ‘Pervert the Course of Justice’. A keyword search using “cover” “up”, “coverup” “Councils” or the names of the four councils would return every record containing any of the words, and they would need to be manually retrieved and read to identify if pertinent to the request and similarly a search for offences of ‘Pervert the Course of Justice’ would require the same actions to identify if any are pertinent to your request.
Additionally we are unable to provide answers for questions 6 – 11. Information re IOPC, Judicial Reviews and The Home Office would need to be requested from them, as again each case would be recorded under the name of the person making the complaint and would need to be manually retrieved and read to identify if pertinent to the request. It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.
We would normally suggest how you can refine your request but given that our information retrieval process generally relies on a computer ran report which captures any information recorded upon the surface of a record and where relevant information is held deeper in a record a manual assessment is usually required to retrieve that information and a single years’ worth of information would likely exceed the appropriate time limit.

Please note that all statistical data referred to or supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

Yours sincerely

Ms E McGuigan
Freedom of Information Decision Maker
Directorate of Standards and Ethics
Cleveland Community Safety Hub | 1 Cliffland Way | Hemlington | TS8 9GL
E-mail: [email address]

Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn

       
Public Service | Transparency | Impartiality | Integrity

“Delivering outstanding policing for our communities”

Please do not use social media or email to report crime as we do not monitor these accounts 24/7. Dial 999 in an emergency or visit the contact us section of our website for all reporting options.

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information,

Thanks for you email. Please can you provide a statistical snap shot to coincide with time limits

Yours sincerely,

Charles Brennan

Freedom of Information, Cleveland Police

This mailbox is for Freedom of Information requests only and all other
mail will be deleted unactioned.

 

For Legal please forward your e-mail to
[1][email address] and for Subject Access please
check the Subject Access section of the Cleveland Police website under the
heading of ‘Advice and Information’ or forward your e-mail to
[2][email address] for all other
enquiries please contact Cleveland Police via 101.

 

References

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

Freedom of Information, Cleveland Police

Dear Mr Brennan,

Enquiry Reference: 12196/2020

I write in response to your e-mail received by this office today, 26th October 2020.

I have recorded your e-mail and contacted the relevant departments regarding the provision of this information.

We will provided you with a formal response as soon as possible but no later than 23rd November 2020.

Yours sincerely

Ms E McGuigan
Freedom of Information Decision Maker
Directorate of Standards and Ethics
Cleveland Community Safety Hub | 1 Cliffland Way | Hemlington | TS8 9GL
E-mail: [email address]

Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn

       
Public Service | Transparency | Impartiality | Integrity

“Delivering outstanding policing for our communities”

Please do not use social media or email to report crime as we do not monitor these accounts 24/7. Dial 999 in an emergency or visit the contact us section of our website for all reporting options.

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information, Cleveland Police

Dear Mr Brennan,

Enquiry Reference: 12196/202020

I write in connection with regards to your e-mail dated 26th October 2020 in which you asked “Please can you provide a statistical snap shot to coincide with time limits”. We have re-contacted the Standards & Ethics Department and with the numbers given we have provided you with an amended response below.

I would like to know statistics on child abuse accusations. Please go back as far as possible as costs dictate, however I would like to see stats for at least 4 years if this is possible.
1. How many complaints have you had from parents or guardians that social services lied to cover up child abuse accusations? What I mean by lie is mislead others, supress or falsify evidence, intimidate witnesses or any other misdemeanours that would be considered to pervert the course of justice to protect a suspected paedophile. Please name the councils.
2. How many complaints have you had from professionals that social services lied to cover up child abuse accusations? What I mean by lie is misled others, supress or falsify evidence, intimidate witnesses or any other misdemeanours that would be considered to pervert the course of justice to protect a suspected paedophile. Please elaborate what agency or profession the professional(s) were in. Please name the councils.
3. How many “cover up” of child abuse investigations (detailed in 1 & 2 above) have you investigated and outcomes?
4. How many “cover up” of child abuse investigations (detailed in 1 & 2 above) have you refused to investigate and reasons why?
5. How many “cover up” of child abuse investigations (detailed in 1 & 2 above) have you investigated half-heartedly? What I mean by half-heartedly is mislead the complainant that an investigation took place but in fact no or little investigation took place.
6. How many complaints to yourself, Professional Standards, IOPC or judicial reviews have you had pertaining to Q5 above? Please provide outcomes.
7. How many investigations have your force had from external police forces against your force or individual officers within your force pertaining to cover up or sabotage of child abuse investigations? Please list outcomes and list the referral of each investigation.
8. How many instructions to investigate have you had from agencies such as the Home Office forcing you to investigate when you force has previously refused, investigated or conducted a half-heartedly investigation. Please list where each referral came from.
9. How many child abuse investigations referrals have you been given and out of these how many were referred to CPS for review / guidance /and / or prosecution?
10. Referring back to Q1 & 2, How many “coverup of child abuse investigations referrals have you been given and out of these how many were referred to CPS for review / guidance / and / or prosecution?
11. How many officers that were employed by your force have been or currently on the sex offender’s register. Please supply rank and if it is in the public domain, the name of the officer.
a) Having looked at and considered the content of your request Cleveland Police would rely upon the following;

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

We have made protracted enquiries within the force re questions 1 – 5 ( Child Abuse and Vulnerable Adults, Safeguarding, Legal and Standards and Ethics) in relation to reports made about parents or guardians that social services have mislead others, supressed or falsified evidence, intimidated witnesses or any other actions that would be considered to pervert the course of justice to protect a suspect of wrongdoing and must advise that each case would be recorded in the name of the person making the report not by the subject matter and the offence could have been recorded as ‘Pervert the Course of Justice’. A keyword search using “cover” “up”, “coverup” “Councils” or the names of the four councils would return every record containing any of the words, and they would need to be manually retrieved and read to identify if pertinent to the request and similarly a search for offences of ‘Pervert the Course of Justice’ would require the same actions to identify if any are pertinent to your request.
Additionally we are unable to provide answers for questions 6 – 11. Information re IOPC, Judicial Reviews and The Home Office would need to be requested from them, as again each case would be recorded under the name of the person making the complaint and would need to be manually retrieved and read to identify if pertinent to the request and within the four year period of your request there were 4061 complaint files and 375 conduct files. It is estimated that this would take in excess of the appropriate time stipulated by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer on the 18th Of October 2004, that is, eighteen hours. This falls under the exemption of 'Compliance exceeding the appropriate limit' covered by Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and as such this work could not be undertaken.
Therefore, please treat this as a refusal notice under S17 of the Freedom of Information Act.
We would normally suggest how you can refine your request but given that our information retrieval process generally relies on a computer ran report which captures any information recorded upon the surface of a record and where relevant information is held deeper in a record a manual assessment is usually required to retrieve that information and a single years’ worth of information would likely exceed the appropriate time limit.

Please note that all statistical data referred to or supplied in relation to Freedom of Information requests is a snapshot of data held at the time the request was received by the Freedom of Information office and is subject to constant change/updates.

The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The APP College of Policing guidance states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced.

Yours sincerely

Ms E McGuigan
Freedom of Information Decision Maker
Directorate of Standards and Ethics
Cleveland Community Safety Hub | 1 Cliffland Way | Hemlington | TS8 9GL
E-mail: [email address]

Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn

       
Public Service | Transparency | Impartiality | Integrity

“Delivering outstanding policing for our communities”

Please do not use social media or email to report crime as we do not monitor these accounts 24/7. Dial 999 in an emergency or visit the contact us section of our website for all reporting options.

show quoted sections