HMIC report on Undercover Policing

The request was refused by Cambridgeshire Constabulary.

Dear Cambridgeshire Constabulary,

I wish to make an FOI request for the publication of the report of the HMIC inspection on undercover policing conducted on the 6th January, and reported to the PCC at the January Business Co-ordination Board. I would also like confirmation that the PCC is on the distribution list for all HMIC reports on the Cambridgeshire Constabulary including the report on Undercover policing.

As a subsidiary questions I would like to know for the year 2013-2014
- What are the number of police officers involved in covert operations observing political organisations whose activity has not been proscribed in law?
- What is the total expenditure on units solely involved in covert policing?
- What is the total number of police informants (CHIS), and what is the total sum paid to them in the period?

I am not after specific information which can be related to any particular criminal or terrorist activity as described in your standard balancing tests. These are general questions which I do not believe could give to any criminal or terrorist knowledge that would further or enhance their ability to prosecute crime or terrorism. This is general information that would support the known view from published reports and data that the Constabulary operate covert policing as part of their tactics. In the case of the sums paid to CHIS this information has been published for preceding periods.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Lythgoe

Cambridgeshire Constabulary

Dear Paul

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 0339/2014
We acknowledge receipt of your Freedom of Information (FOI) request which
was received by Cambridgeshire Constabulary on 28/04/2014

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  You will receive a response within the statutory
timescale of twenty working days as defined by the Act. In some
circumstances, we may be unable to achieve this deadline. If this is the
case, you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the earliest
opportunity.

If we require any further clarification regarding this request, you will
be notified.

We would advise you that the nature of certain requests may involve
payment of a fee.  If this is the case, you will be notified.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
telephone on 01480 456 111 asking for the Information Access Office or
email [Cambridgeshire Constabulary request email]

Regards

Julie Purse
Information Access Office
Cambridgeshire Constabulary

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To visit Cambridgeshire Constabulary's website please follow this link:

http://www.cambs-police.co.uk/index.asp

show quoted sections

Cambridgeshire Constabulary

1 Attachment

Dear Paul

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 0339/2014

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by Cambridgeshire Constabulary on 28th April 2014

I regret to inform you that Cambridgeshire Constabulary have not been able
to complete its response to your request by the date originally stated.  

The FOI Act obliges us to respond to requests promptly and in any case no
later than 20 working days after receiving your request. We must consider
firstly whether we can comply with Section 1 (1)(a) of the Act, which is
our duty to confirm or deny whether the information requested is held and
secondly we must comply with section 1(1)(b), which is the provision of
such information. However, when a qualified exemption applies either to
the confirmation or denial or the information provision and a public
interest test is engaged, the Act allows the time for response to be
longer than 20 working days, if the balance of such public interest is
undermined.

In this case we have not yet reached a decision on where the balance of
the public interest lies in respect of either of the above obligations. We
estimate that it will take upto an additional 16 working days to take a
decision on where this balance lies. Therefore, we plan to let you have a
response by 20th June . If it appears that it will take longer than this
to reach a conclusion you will be kept informed.

The specific exemption(s) which apply in relation to your request is :-

s30         Investigations
s31        Law Enforcement
 
Section 30 is a qualified class based exemption which requires the
application of a test to ascertain where the greater public interest lies.
 In respect of your request, any information which (if provided) is likely
to compromise any ongoing or future investigation then this exemption
could apply to some or all of that information.  
Section 31 is a qualified, prejudiced based exemption where the public
interest must also be considered in relation to any information which
might be held. In addition to the public interest, information specific to
the considered prejudice must also be considered when applying the
exemption.  With regard to your request, should it be considered that this
exemption applies then detail will be given as to which aspect of law
enforcement would be at risk of harm.

I can assure you that every effort will be made to ensure an appropriate
response will be made within this new timescale.

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.  Should you wish to discuss
this matter please write or contact the Information Access Office on
telephone number 01480 456 111 Ext 2092 quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

David

David Price
Information Access Office
Cambridgeshire Constabulary

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To visit Cambridgeshire Constabulary's website please follow this link:

http://www.cambs-police.co.uk/index.asp

show quoted sections

Cambridgeshire Constabulary

1 Attachment

Dear sir

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 0339/2014

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
on 28th April 2014 and is currently the subject of an extension whilst I
consider whether there is a greater public interest in releasing
information or exempting it for release into the wider public domain.

I regret to inform you that Cambridgeshire Constabulary will not be able
to issue a response to your request within the extended period and it will
take upto a further 5 working days to provide the final response.  

I am, however able to provide you with responses to your first two
questions and these are as follows:

1.        a.        I wish to make an FOI request for the publication of
the report of the HMIC inspection on undercover policing conducted on the
6th January, and reported to the PCC at the January Business Co-ordination
Board.

Unfortunately, Cambridgeshire Constabulary does not have any recorded
information with which to answer this question as no written report has
been issued by HMIC.  Contact with the HMIC has confirmed that no report
had been issued.

I would also like

        b.        confirmation that the PCC is on the distribution list
for all HMIC reports on the Cambridgeshire Constabulary including the
report on Undercover policing.

Cambridgeshire Constabulary has no information with which to answer this
question, however we have been advised by HMIC that the Cambridgeshire
OPCC is on the distribution list for all planned HMIC Reports.  If copies
of reports submitted to the OPCC are required, the requestor may wish to
submit a request to them as a separate public authority.

I now advise you that the amended date for a response is 26th June. I can
assure you that every effort will be made to ensure an appropriate
response will be made within this new timescale.

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.  Should you wish to discuss
this matter please write or contact the Information Access Office on
telephone number 01480 456 111 Ext 2036 quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

David Price
Information Access Office
Cambridgeshire Constabulary

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To visit Cambridgeshire Constabulary's website please follow this link:

http://www.cambs-police.co.uk/index.asp

show quoted sections

Cambridgeshire Constabulary

1 Attachment

Dear Phil

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 0339/2014
In reply to your request for information under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000, received

1.        I wish to make an FOI request for the publication of the report
of the HMIC inspection on undercover policing conducted on the 6th
January, and reported to the PCC at the January Business Co-ordination
Board.

2.        I would also like confirmation that the PCC is on the
distribution list for all HMIC reports on the Cambridgeshire Constabulary
including the report on Undercover policing.

3.        As a subsidiary questions I would like to know for the year
2013-2014
        a.        - What are the number of police officers involved in
covert operations observing political organisations whose activity has not
been proscribed in law?
        b.        - What is the total expenditure on units solely involved
in covert policing?
        c.        - What is the total number of police informants (CHIS),
and

        d.        what is the total sum paid to them in the period?

I am not after specific information which can be related to any particular
criminal or terrorist activity as described in your standard balancing
tests. These are general questions which I do not believe could give to
any criminal or terrorist knowledge that would further or enhance their
ability to prosecute crime or terrorism. This is general information that
would support the known view from published reports and data that the
Constabulary operate covert policing as part of their tactics. In the case
of the sums paid to CHIS this information has been published for preceding
periods.

Please note that I have added question numbers and letters to aid in the
clarity of my response to you.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (The Act) requires us to handle all
requests in a manner that is blind to the identity of the requestor.  Any
information released in response to a request is regarded as being
published, and therefore in the public domain without caveat.
We have completed all searches within Cambridgeshire Constabulary and
hereby enclose your response.

1.        Cambridgeshire Constabulary have no information with which to
answer this question. This is because no written report has been
distributed to the constabulary.

2.        I can confirm, following contact with HMIC, that the
Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner is on the distribution list
for all HMIC reports.

3.        d.        £87,553.

The responses to the remaining questions are as follows:

3        c.  In relation to this question, in respect of our duties
specified within Section 1(1)(a) of the FOI Act I can confirm that
Cambridgeshire Constabulary do hold the information requested but are not
obliged to provide this information by virtue of exemptions within the
Freedom of Information Act, as set out in the following paragraphs..

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Cambridgeshire
Constabulary, when refusing to provide such information (because the
information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:  
(a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption in question and (c)
states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

The exemptions applicable to the information are:

s30(2)(b)        Information held is exempt if it relates to the obtaining
of information from confidential sources.

s31(1)(a)(b)        Information which is not exempt by virtue of s30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be
likely to prejudice: the prevention or                         detection
of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

s30 is a qualified, class-based exemption for which there is a requirement
for me to consider whether there is a sufficiently strong public interest
to enable disclosure.

s31 is a qualified and prejudice-based exemption which requires both a
public interest test and an expression of the harm which would result by
unrestricted disclosure.

Section 30 Public Interest Considerations

Factors favouring disclosure

There is information within the public domain confirming that police use
covert human intelligence sources to assist them with investigations and
the effective delivery of law enforcement.  Disclosure would enhance the
public’s knowledge about how information relating to informants is used by
the Constabulary and how the intelligence received assists in day to day
investigations and operations to assist the prevention and detection of
crime; the apprehension and prosecution of offenders and the
administration of justice.  

Disclosure would also assist in stopping any incorrect rumours or
falsehoods relating to how the police manage covert human intelligence
sources (CHIS).

Factors favouring non-disclosure

Disclosure of the information requested could identify informant activity
within a force area.  Over a period of time if several disclosures were
made, individuals could analyse the information and identify any sudden
peaks or troughs in informant activity.  This would hinder the prevention
and detection of crime and also prejudice our ability to maintain
confidential sources.  Consequently, the force’s future law enforcement
capabilities would be affected.  

Balancing Test

There is information within the public domain confirming that police use
covert human intelligence sources to assist them with investigations and
the effective delivery of law enforcement.  The Police Service is tasked
with protecting the community we serve and solving crime.  There is a
public interest argument in ensuring we are open and transparent with
regard to policing investigations and operations.  There is no doubt that
for the issues outlined above any disclosure relating to sensitive
informant information would jeopardise those important roles.  

As has been mentioned informants play a vital role in assisting the
police, and is based very much on relationships built on trust and the
expectation of complete confidentiality Cambridgeshire Constabulary would
never disclose information which would compromise our tactics.

It is therefore my opinion that the balance lies in favour of
non-disclosure of the information.

Statement of harm in relation to Section 31(1)(a)(b)

The applicant is asking for the amount of expenditure provided to units
that solely work in covert policing.  Disclosure would provide the actual
amount of monetary gain given to each covert unit within Cambridgeshire
Constabulary.  If this request were submitted nationally this would enable
individuals to geographically map which forces have a higher level of
covert policing activity against other forces thereby identifying
vulnerable forces.  This would be beneficial to terrorists and terrorist
organisations.

Public Interest Considerations

Section 31

Factors favouring disclosure

The release of this information would provide an insight into the amount
of public funds spent on covert policing units within Cambridgeshire
Constabulary.  This enhanced knowledge would assist in providing
transparency in the way Cambridgeshire Constabulary carry out and manage
their day-to-day delivery of effective law enforcement within covert
policing.

Factors favouring non-disclosure

As detailed within the harm any disclosure relating to the financial
backing of covert policing units would be a valuable asset to individuals
and/or organisations/terrorist cells wish to commit crime.  Any disclosure
where a force is identified as being vulnerable due to the low amount of
funding allocated to their covert policing units would enable offenders to
use vulnerable force areas to carry out their offending behaviour.

Balancing Test

Whilst there is always a public interest in the transparency of how a
police force delivers effective law enforcement, as in this case how a
budget is spent, there is a very strong public interest in safeguard the
intricacies and tactical capability of how covert policing is managed.  

The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which
policing is built and the police has a clear responsibility to prevent
crime, arrest those responsible for committing crime or those than plan to
commit crime.  Information which identifies the tactical capability of
covert policing units within a force area could be used by terrorist and
offenders, as outlined in the harm, to their advantage.  Disclosure would
undermine the operational integrity of effective law enforcement and have
a negative impact on law enforcement.

It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure
is not made out.

Response in request of any other information held by the Constabulary,
including in respect of Question 3(a) and 3 (b)

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties
on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at s1(1)(a)
is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is
held. The second duty at s1(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.

The Police Service would never divulge information regarding whether or
not specific covert investigations have taken place/are currently taking
place.  To do so would undermine the investigative process and this should
be protected to the utmost degree.

Confirming or denying the existence of whether any information is held
relevant to this request would contravene the constrictions laid out
within Section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in that this
stipulates a generic bar on disclosure of any information supplied by, or
concerning, certain Security Bodies.  Such a disclosure to the world would
undermine the partnership approach to law enforcement.  

Cambridgeshire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any
other information relevant to this request, as the duty in Section 1(1)(a)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the
following exemptions:

Section 23(5) Information supplied by, or concerning, certain Security
Bodies

Section 24(2) National Security

Section 30(3) Investigations (by virtue of Section 30(2))

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Section 38(2) Health and Safety

Section 23 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement
to consider the public interest in this case.  Confirming or denying the
existence of whether information is held would contravene the
constrictions laid out with Section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 in that this stipulates a generic bar on disclosure of any
information applied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.  

Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption and there is a requirement
to consider the public interest to ensure neither confirming or denying
information is held is appropriate.

Sections 24, 31 and 38 are prejudiced based qualified exemptions and there
is a requirement to evidence the prejudice (harm) in disclosure and
consider the public interest to ensure neither confirming or denying that
information is held is appropriate.

Overall Harm in Confirming or Denying that Information is held

Modern-day policing is intelligence led which is particularly pertinent
with regard to any undercover operation.  The National Intelligence Model
is adhered to by all police forces across England and Wales.  It is a
business process with an intention to provide focus to operational
policing and to achieve a disproportionately greater impact from the
resources applied to any problem.  It is dependent on a clear framework of
analysis of information and intelligence allowing a problem solving
approach to law enforcement crime prevention techniques.  To confirm
whether or not Cambridgeshire Constabulary are currently or have ever
undertaken covert investigations into political organisations not
proscribed by law would undermine any such operation by revealing tactical
capability and intelligence within this area.  

The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which
policing is built.  The Police Service has a clear responsibility to
prevent crime and arrest those responsible for committing crime or those
that plan to commit crime.  By confirming whether or not a specific tactic
is used could directly influence the stages of that process, jeopardise
current investigations and prejudice future law enforcement.  This in turn
could lead to police officers being resourced away from the frontline in
order to focus on catching the criminals that are the focus within any
undercover investigation.

The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored.  It is generally recognised
that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and
unpredictable.  The current UK threat level from international terrorism,
based on intelligence, is assessed as substantial, see below link:

[1]https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/...

In order to counter criminal and terrorist behaviour it is vital that the
police have the ability to work together, where necessary covertly, to
obtain intelligence within current legislative frameworks to assist in the
investigative process to ensure the successful arrest and prosecution of
offenders who commit or plan to commit acts of terrorism.

To achieve this goal, it is vitally important that information sharing
takes place between police officers, members of the public, police forces
as well as other security law enforcement bodies within the United
Kingdom.  Such an action supports counter-terrorism measures in the fight
to deprive terrorist networks of their ability to commit crime.

To confirm or deny whether any other information is held would be
extremely useful to those involved in terrorist activity as it would
enable them to identify whether specific covert investigations have taken
place.  In addition disclosure of informants data could impact on the
recruitment and retention of CHIS in general, due to the perceptions of
(rather than the actual) risk of identification.  In an Information
Tribunal case relating to the payments made to CHIS in Croydon
(EA/2010/0006), it was accepted that this argument applied as much to CHIS
providing intelligence in relation to national security concerns as to
CHIS engaged in countering more traditional criminal threats.  In this
way, the disclosure of payment information would damage national security
through discouraging current national security CHIS from cooperating with
the Police Service in other geographical areas, or preventing the
recruitment of national security CHIS in the future – regardless of
whether the area in question actually currently runs CHIS reports on
serious crime, terrorist or other threats.

The Police Service has a duty of care to the community at large, its
employees and also offenders.  As identified above to confirm or deny the
number of covert police officers that may or may not be involved in a
specific covert operation could compromise covert officer personal safety,
and potentially the safety of individuals who may be misidentified as
being covert police officers.  

In addition any disclosure no matter how generic which may assist a
terrorist or terrorist organisation will adversely affect public safety.

Public Interest Considerations

Section 24(2) National Security

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that
information is held

The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and resources
distributed within an area of policing.  To confirm whether information
exists relating to a specific type of covert investigation would enable
the general public to hold Cambridgeshire Constabulary to account where
covert investigations into political organisations may be required to
combat terrorist activity.  In the current financial climate of cuts and
with the call for transparency of public spending this would enable
improved public debate.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that
any other information is held

Security measures are put in place to protect the community that we serve.
 As evidenced within the harm to confirm detail of specific covert
investigative activity that may or may not have taken place would
highlight to terrorists and individuals intent on carrying out criminal
behaviour, covert policing activity. This would ultimately increase the
risk of harm to the general public and significantly undermine any ongoing
or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the
United Kingdom.

Taking into account the current security climate within the United
Kingdom, no information (such as the citing of an exemption which confirms
information pertinent to this request is held, or conversely, stating ‘no
information is held’) which may aid a terrorist should be disclosed.  To
what extent this information may aid a terrorist is unknown, but it is
clear that it will have an impact on a force’s ability to monitor
terrorist activity.

Irrespective of what information is or isn’t held, the public entrust the
Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety
and protection and the only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with
what is placed  into the public domain.

The cumulative effect of terrorists gathering information from various
sources would be even more impactive when linked to other information
gathered from various sources about terrorism.  The more information
disclosed over time will give a more detailed account of the tactical
infrastructure of not only a force area but also the country as a whole.

Any incident that results from such a disclosure would by default affect
National Security.

In addition, other organisations outside the police service are also
widely engaged in rewarding informants in a number of ways, and therefore
by confirming or denying that any other information exists relevant to the
request would harm the close relationship that exists with such
organisations, where trust and confidence in this specific area has been
built up in the exchange of information and financial assistance during
the Criminal Justice process.

To confirm or deny whether Cambridgeshire Constabulary hold any additional
information would allow inferences to be made about the nature and extent
of national security related activities which may or may not take place in
a given area.  This could enable terrorist groups to take steps to avoid
detection, and as such, confirmation or denial would be damaging to
national security.

By confirming or denying any policing arrangements of this nature would
render national security measures less effective.  This would 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.

Section 30

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that
information is held

Confirming or denying that information exists relevant to this request
would lead to a better informed public improving their knowledge and
understanding of the investigatory process and, as all police
investigations are publicly funded, confirmation that information is held
would provide transparency with regard to the allocation of force budgets.

Confirmation that information exists could promote public trust in
providing transparency and demonstrating openness and accountability into
how the investigation took place.  It could also provide reassurance to
the public that the police service tasks all reports of a crime seriously
and conducts investigations appropriately.  To confirm could allow the
public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the Police
Service.

Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that
any other information is held

However, by its very nature, information held relating to covert policing
and informants is sensitive in nature.  Under FOI there is a requirement
to comply with Section 1(1)(a) and confirm what information is held.  In
some cases it is that confirmation, or not, which could disclose facts
harmful to informants.  In some cases their mere existence can place
individuals in grave danger.  The only methodology which will provide the
required degree of protection to those individuals is if the force takes
advantage of its ability under FOI legislation, to, where appropriate,
neither confirm or deny that the information requested, is or is not held.
 The Police Service will never disclose information which could identify
investigative activity and therefore undermine their investigations.  To
do so would hinder the prevention or detection of crime.  

Confirmation that information is held would prejudice how investigations
are carried out in the future by revealing covert investigative activity.
 This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and affect
Cambridgeshire Constabulary’s law enforcement capabilities.  Confirmation
would also undermine the partnership approach to investigations.

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) – confirming information
is held

By confirming or denying whether covert investigations into policitical
organisations are undertaken by Cambridgeshire Constabulary would lead to
better public awareness identifying that the force undertakes all avenues
of investigative processes in order to tackle crime covertly.  This fact
may lead to more information (intelligence) being submitted from the
public which may culminate in a reduction of crime.

Section 31 – Factors favouring non compliance with Section 1(1)(a)

The Police Service will not confirm whether or not it is involved in
specific investigative activity with regard to covert policing.  To do so
would disclose information to the detriment of law enforcement as
evidenced within the harm.  

Section 38 – Health and Safety

Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) – confirming information
is held

Disclosing information relating to the number of covert police officers
deployed on a covert operation into illegal political organisations would
provide public awareness into the amount covert manpower utilised to
ensure the operation runs smoothly.  This would improve public debate and
would highlight how public funds are spent for this type of policing.  

Section 38 – Factors favouring non compliance with Section 1(1)(a)

Any information, no matter how generic, which would assist terrorists in
their offending behaviour would undoubtedly be a risk to the safety of the
public at large and would lead to a loss of confidence in Cambridgeshire
Constabulary’s ability to protect the community.  

Balancing Test

The points above highlight the merits of confirming or denying whether any
other information pertinent to this request exists.  The security of the
country is of paramount importance and the Police Service is charged with
enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the
communities we serve.  As part of that policing purpose, various covert
policing and investigative activities may or may not be used.  The Police
Service will not divulge whether any other information is or is not held
if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine
National Security.  Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency
of policing operations and investigations, providing assurance that the
Police Service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat
from criminals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding
both national security and the integrity of police investigations and
operations in this highly sensitive 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.

These points were agreed by the Information tribunal in the case of ICO v
Metropolitan Police, EA/2010/2006, where the request was for informant
spend at borough level. Although the information in this case was subject
to substantive exemptions, the key public interest balancing point, was
highly persuasive.

‘CHIS are given strong guarantees that their identities will be protected.
In some instances, a prosecution may be stopped rather then risk the
identity, or in some cases even the existence, of a CHIS being revealed.
We accept the evidence of DI D as to the “paranoia” of those acting, or
contemplating acting, as a CHIS and accept that they would view the
disclosure of the disputed information as a breach of confidence that
would significantly undermine their confidence in having their identities
protected.’

In addition any disclosure by Cambridgeshire Constabulary that places the
security of the country at risk, no matter how generic, would undermine
any trust or confidence individuals have in us.  Therefore, at this moment
in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours
neither confirming nor denying that information exists.

No inference can be drawn from this refusal that further information is or
isn’t held.

If you are unhappy with this response, please see the attachment below,
which sets out your rights to appeal.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact the Information Access Office via email, or on telephone number
01480 456 111 extension 2092.

Regards

David Price
Information Access Office
Cambridgeshire Constabulary

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To visit Cambridgeshire Constabulary's website please follow this link:

http://www.cambs-police.co.uk/index.asp

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/...