Cost of policing the Oxford United -v- Port Vale game on 2nd October 2010

The request was partially successful.

Dear Thames Valley Police,

Please can you provide me with :

a) The estimated cost to the taxpayer of policing this game

b) The number of officers, dogs, horses and police vehicles used.

c) The bill for your services that will be presented to Oxford United Football Club

d) A copy of any de-briefing documentation, given the events that ensued on the afternoon in question.

Yours faithfully,

John Evans

Dear Mr Evans

Reference No: RFI2010000667

Thank you for your request for information dated 03/10/2010 concerning
Policing of the Oxford United v Port Vale game on 2 October 2010.

This request will be dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

Your request will now be considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject
to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances Thames Valley Police may be unable to achieve
this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
Thames Valley Police.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Shields

Information Compliance Researcher

show quoted sections

TVP told me "Your request will now be considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale (sic)of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third party. In some circumstances Thames Valley Police may be unable to achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity"

I've had no reply in 20 working days, but that's fine by me, as I know from working with the FOI section of TVP that they are well under-resourced. However, it would have been nice to have been given a response along the lines of "sorry we broke the Law in relation to section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act but we'll give you a proper response by 'x'"

All-in-all it makes me wonder/worry just how busy they are if they can't even do that. i.e. If the police can't obey the formal UK statute/legislation that is laid down by Parliament then what sort of example does that present to the people who they are meant to police?

Dear Mr Evans

Reference No: RFI2010000667

Thank you for your request for information dated 03/10/2010 which, for
clarity, I repeat:

Oxford United v Port Vale on 2 October 2010

   

Please can you provide me with:

    

     a) The estimated cost to the taxpayer of policing this game

    

     b) The number of officers, dogs, horses and police vehicles used.

    

     c) The bill for your services that will be presented to Oxford
United Football Club

    

     d) A copy of any de-briefing documentation, given the events that
ensued on the afternoon in   question.

Your application has now been considered and our response is detailed
below:

a)  The overall cost to Thames Valley Police of policing this match was
£8278

b)  Deployment data of this type cannot be disclosed as it is covered by
the following exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA):

Section 31: Law Enforcement

Section 31 is a prejudice-based qualified exemption and as such one must
consider both the public interest and harm in disclosure.

Firstly, the harm in releasing this information is that operational
planning could be adversely affected and this could compromise Thames
Valley Police's effectiveness in responding to similar future events. The
safety of the community is of paramount importance and any disclosure of
deployment data, however minor, may result in safety implications for the
public, placing the well being of citizens at risk.

Disclosure of information concerning deployment of Police Officers at
football matches could reveal Thames Valley Police force capabilities and
tactics. This would be useful to individuals intent on causing disruption
or engaging in criminal activity in future matches as they may be able to
infer or guess the level of police officer or deployment and thereby
assess the likelihood of successfully committing crime at a match. 

Public Interest Considerations favouring Disclosure:

 Accountability - When information disclosed relates directly to the
efficiency and effectiveness of the force or its officers. The purpose of
the Act is to make public authorities more accountable and this factor,
therefore, may be applied to a wide range of scenarios from how an
individual or the force fulfils their role or function, to policy
decisions that have been taken in relation to investigations or general
policy issues. In this case, the force may be obliged to demonstrate to
the general public that they are actively involved in the prevention and
detection of crime.

 Public debate - Where release of information would contribute to the
quality and accuracy of public debate. This factor applies where the
release of accurate information will inform and enhance public debate on
particular subjects that may be topical. In this case the release of
accurate information may inform public debate and boost levels of
confidence within the community.

 Public Interest Considerations favouring Non-Disclosure:

Efficient and effective conduct of the service / force - Where current or
future law enforcement role of the force may be compromised by the release
of information.  In this case, inappropriate disclosure may undermine
Thames Valley Police's ability to prevent/detect future crime at football
matches and to protect life/property.

Public Safety:  Individuals intent on disruption may use this type of
information to change tactics and to gauge the likelihood of detection
when committing crime.  If deployment of police officers was disclosed
then it may make future football matches less safe for spectators and the
general public in the area. Such disclosure could also cause distress or
anxiety for those attending matches if it were perceived to be less safe.

Balancing Test

In this case, there are factors favouring disclosure and non-disclosure
and bearing in mind that disclosure made under the Freedom of Information
is disclosure into the public domain; the public interest would not be
served where disclosure of information could prejudice and undermine the
Police force's capability to detect and prevent crime. Therefore, it is my
decision that in this case the public interest test balance favours
non-disclosure.

c) Thames Valley Police has not yet prepared an invoice to Oxford United
Football Club and the total fees have not been finalised. I therefore
cannot provide you with any relevant information for this question.

d) I am unable to disclose any information for this question as I consider
that the above exemption, Section 31: Law Enforcement is again applicable
to the disclosure of such information. Much of my reasoning is similar to
the reasons already stated but I would reiterate that an operational
document such as a Debriefing document will contain much sensitive
tactical information and it would be inappropriate to release such
information into the public domain. Such disclosure could adversely affect
future operational planning into the policing of a similar event and could
provide individuals intent on criminal activity with a valuable insight
into the tactical and operational decisions made by Thames Valley Police.

Again, I list below the public interest considerations for and against
disclosure which were used in coming to this decision:

Public Interest Considerations favouring Disclosure:

The above listed considerations are again applicable to the reasons for
disclosing this information and I will not repeat them in this section of
my response. I would add though that disclosure of this document would
provide reassurance to the general public that Thames Valley Police is
assessing its actions after any event or operation and is always seeking
to improve and ensure that the best protection possible is provided to the
public.

Public Interest Considerations favouring Non-Disclosure

I would refer you again to the reasons listed above for non-disclosure of
information which has implications under Section 31. Additionally,
disclosure of this information could lead to criminals having an extremely
high level of operational detail which should not be released into the
public domain. Thames Valley Police cannot release any information which
increases the ability of a criminal to evade detection or operate more
freely within a certain environment. The protection of the public is
paramount to any police force and the disclosure of this information would
thus undermine one of Thames Valley Police's core functions.

Balancing Test

Again, I would conclude that the considerations in favour of
non-disclosure outweigh those in favour of disclosure and therefore cannot
provide you with this information.

I would furthermore add that the 20 working day timeframe meant that our
response was due and has now been sent today. Had there been any delay to
our reply then an email stating this would have been sent to you.

Please contact me quoting the above reference number if you would like to
discuss this matter further and may I take this opportunity to thank you
for your interest in Thames Valley Police.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Shields

Information Compliance Researcher

show quoted sections