Info, relating to 'intelligence' received by SYP relating to street tree felling in Sheffield and quoted in the communications plan for Operation Quito

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, South Yorkshire Police should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear South Yorkshire Police,

The following statement was made at an ‘initial risk assessment meeting’ with South Yorkshire Police;
“The new protestors, believed to be professional, are aggressive in nature and have been directing this towards the workers. They have pulled on and cut safety ropes of Amey workers, olive oil has been sprayed on trees (this could cause a chainsaw to slip), and one tree was discovered to have been studded with nails and glass. Protestors are also taking their, often very young, children to protests.”
This was subsequently quoted in V1 of the Communications plan for operation Quito and was apparently subjected to 5x5x5 intelligence evaluation.

1.1 What date was this ‘initial risk assessment’ meeting held?

1.2 Was this meeting minuted?

1.3 What companies, organisations and other parties were represented at this meeting?

1.4 Which company or organisation was being represented by the person or persons that made the statement above?

1.5 Was corroboration sought by South Yorkshire Police to establish the veracity of this statement? What corroboration was identified by SYP?

1.6 When was V1 of the operation’s Communications Plan signed off for distribution?

1.7 How many versions of the Communications plan for operation Quito were created? Please supply the dates each version was signed off for distribution?

2.1 When was the 5x5x5 evaluation of the ‘intelligence’ above initiated and when was it completed?

2.2 What ‘Source Evaluation’ category was assigned to this ‘intelligence’ pursuant to the 5x5x5 evaluation; 1, 2 or 3?

2.3 When intelligence assessment was graded for reliability of the source what category was assigned pursuant to the 5x5x5 evaluation; A, B, C, D or E?

2.5 Was each separate allegation in the statement evaluated individually?

2.6 What Handling Code and conditions were assigned to this ‘intelligence’?

3. When the ‘intelligence’ was evaluated using the 5x5x5 method, was reference made to information previously supplied to and acted upon by SYP relating to Operation Testate.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Buxton

FOI, South Yorkshire Police

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Buxton

 

Please find attached our response to your Freedom of Information request.

 

Regards

 

Louise Holmes

 

South Yorkshire Police

Information Compliance Unit

Professional Standards Department

Unit 20 Sheffield 35A Business Park

Churchill Way

Sheffield

S35 2PY

 

Email - [South Yorkshire Police request email]

SYP Alerts offers information about local policing issues by text, email
or voice message. Sign-up now at www.sypalerts.co.uk #SignMeUp

Dear FOI,

This is not a request for an internal review.

Requests 1.1-1.5, remain unanswered. I have reviewed the documents you have linked to, unfortunately the information requested is not contained therein. Please provide this information as it is now overdue.
Please also confirm that the meeting the documents refer to are what was referred to by SYP as an “initial risk assessment meeting”.

Requests 1.6 and 1.7 have not been answered. Please provide the requested information as it is now overdue.

Requests 2.1 – 2.6 have not been answered and a web link to a generic proforma list of exemptions has been attached, dated 15/6/18. Which exemption(s) is being applied to each individual question? I cannot identify any that are applicable. Please provide the requested information as it is now overdue.

You also quote, “I have made reference to the information within my plan but the source and evaluation would not be disclosed”. I did not request the source of the ‘information’ as this is already in the public realm.
Who made this statement and what ‘plan’ is being referred to?

Question 3 remains unanswered. Please provide the requested information as it is now overdue.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Buxton

Dear FOI,
Further to my email of 26th July, please provide the information I requested on 25 June, as it was due on 24th July.
Thank you in anticipation.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Buxton

Dear FOI,

Dear FOI,

Further to my email of 26th July requesting information, this information is extremely overdue and in breach of the deadline as defined in law, please provide the information I requested on 25 June, as it was due on 24th July.

Thank you in anticipation.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Buxton

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Buxton

FOI, South Yorkshire Police

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Buxton

Your response was sent on 22/7/2019. I have attached the email for your reference.

Also please see the below email trail.

Louise Holmes
Information Compliance Clerk

South Yorkshire Police
Performance and Governance
Unit 20
Churchill Way
Sheffield
S35 2PY

Email - [South Yorkshire Police request email]

show quoted sections

Dear South Yorkshire Police,

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

RE: Freedom of Information Request – Reference No:20191481
I am very disappointed and extremely concerned that South Yorkshire Police have persistently failed to abide by the legislation regarding this freedom of information request, especially as this is of particular public interest.

I am writing to request an internal review of South Yorkshire Police's handling of my FOI request 'Info, relating to 'intelligence' received by SYP relating to street tree felling in Sheffield and quoted in the communications plan for Operation Quito'.

I refer to my email dated 26th July as quoted below:

"Requests 1.1-1.5, remain unanswered. I have reviewed the documents you have linked to, unfortunately the information requested is not contained therein. Please provide this information as it is now overdue.
Please also confirm that the meeting the documents refer to are what was referred to by SYP as an “initial risk assessment meeting”.

Requests 1.6 and 1.7 have not been answered. Please provide the requested information as it is now overdue.

Requests 2.1 – 2.6 have not been answered and a web link to a generic proforma list of exemptions has been attached, dated 15/6/18. Which exemption(s) is being applied to each individual question? I cannot identify any that are applicable. Please provide the requested information as it is now overdue.

You also quote, “I have made reference to the information within my plan but the source and evaluation would not be disclosed”. I did not request the source of the ‘information’ as this is already in the public realm; who made this statement and what ‘plan’ is being referred to?

Question 3 remains unanswered. Please provide the requested information as it is now overdue."

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Buxton

FOI, South Yorkshire Police

1 Attachment

 

Dear Mr Buxton,

 

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 1481/19 and Internal Review
reference: 1807/19

 

Following your email of 12 August 2019, the content of your email clearly
constitutes your dissatisfaction at the response that was sent to you on
the 22^nd July 2019. 

In my position as the Deputy Information Compliance Officer, I am
independent of the original decision making process,

Review of the Original Decision

 

I have reviewed your original request:

 

1.1 What date was this ‘initial risk assessment’ meeting held?

1.2 Was this meeting minuted?

1.3 What companies, organisations and other parties were represented at
this meeting?

1.4 Which company or organisation was being represented by the person or
persons that made the statement above?

1.5 Was corroboration sought by South Yorkshire Police to establish the
veracity of this statement? What corroboration was identified by SYP

1.6 When was V1 of the operation’s Communications Plan signed off for
distribution?

1.7 How many versions of the Communications plan for operation Quito were
created? Please supply the dates each version was signed off for
distribution?

2.1 When was the 5x5x5 evaluation of the ‘intelligence’ above initiated
and when was it completed?

2.2 What ‘Source Evaluation’ category was assigned to this ‘intelligence’
pursuant to the 5x5x5 evaluation; 1, 2 or 3?

2.3 When intelligence assessment was graded for reliability of the source
what category was assigned pursuant to the 5x5x5 evaluation; A, B, C, D or
E?

2.5 Was each separate allegation in the statement evaluated individually?

2.6 What Handling Code and conditions were assigned to this
‘intelligence’?

3. When the ‘intelligence’ was evaluated using the 5x5x5 method, was
reference made to information previously supplied to and acted upon by SYP
relating to Operation Testate.

 

I note that the decision maker has provided some links to the internet
pages containing the released documents relating to Operation Quito.

 

I have reminded myself that Section 84 of the Act defines the
‘information’ a public authority can be asked to provide under the Act.
makes clear that it means recorded information held in any form,
electronic or paper. Public authorities are not required to create new
information in order to comply with a request for information under the
Act. We only need to consider information already in existence at the time
a request is received.

 

I have reviewed the response and your subsequent email which challenged
the decision notice, but specifically did not ask for an internal review.

 

Requests 1.1-1.5, are all answered on the link provided, the minutes of
the meetings are linked to the page, which details the date (question
1.1), whether the meeting was minuted (question 1.2), which companies and
organisations were present (question 1.3) the answer to question 1.4 is
exempt under Section 40

 

There is no further recorded information regarding the response to
requests 1.6 and 1.7.

 

The answers to requests 2.1 – 2.6 are exempt for disclosure under Section
31 of the Freedom of Information Act, the link provided details the harm
test carried out by the decision maker.

 

In relation to the decision notice where it related to your questions 2.1
– 3  you stated, “You also quote, “I have made reference to the
information within my plan but the source and evaluation would not be
disclosed”. …Who made this statement and what ‘plan’ is being referred
to?”.  Whilst the answer to that question is not recorded information I
can advise you that it was a quote from Supt McCurry when the information
was sourced, who made the  comment and it referred to the Tactical Plan..

 

If there was any recorded information about Question 3 it would be exempt
under Section 31 as above. 

 

After taking all the above into consideration, your internal review is not
upheld. 

 

If you are still dissatisfied with how your request has been handled, you
can raise this with the Information Commissioner.  Contact details below:
-

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Water Lane

Wilmslow,

Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Website: [1]www.ico.org.uk

 

Yours sincerely

[2]signature

Gary Slinn LLB (Hons)

Deputy Information Compliance Officer

Information Compliance Unit

South Yorkshire Police

Performance and Governance

Unit 20

Churchill Way

Sheffield

S35 2PY

 

Email – [email address]

Please note that police forces in the United Kingdom are routinely
required to provide information and statistics to government bodies and
the recording criteria is set nationally.  However, the systems used for
recording these figures are not generic, nor are the procedures used
locally in capturing the data.  It should be noted that for these reasons
this forces response to your questions should not be used for the
comparison purposes with any other response you may receive.

 

South Yorkshire Police provides you the right to request a re-examination
of your case under its review procedure (copy enclosed). If you decide to
request such a review and having followed the Constabulary’s full process
you are still dissatisfied, then you have the right to direct your
comments to the Information Commissioner who will give it consideration.

 

The South Yorkshire Police in complying with their statutory duty under
sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the
enclosed information will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed
information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the
copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached
information should be addressed to The Force Solicitor, South Yorkshire
Police, Police Headquarters, Carbook House, 5 Carbrook Hall Road, ,
Sheffield, S9 2EH.

 

 

SYP Alerts offers information about local policing issues by text, email
or voice message. Sign-up now at www.sypalerts.co.uk #SignMeUp

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/

Dear Gary Slinn,

RE: Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 1481/19 and Internal Review
reference: 1807/19

Thank you for your response dated 13th August.

I have the following queries:

a. You have referred me to transcripts of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd 'Op Quito Silver Planning' meetings held on 5/2/18, 19/02/18 and 23/02/18. Please can you clarify whether one of these is the meeting referred to as an "Initial Risk Assessment Meeting" in FOIR 20181418? The statement; “The new protesters, believed to be professional, are aggressive in nature and have been directing this towards the workers. They have pulled on and cut safety ropes of Amey workers, olive oil has been sprayed on trees (this could cause a chainsaw to slip), and one tree was discovered to have been studded with nails and glass. Protesters are also taking their, often very young, children to protests.” is not visible in any of the three transcripts.

b. Which subsection of Section 31 are you invoking as an exemption with regards to questions 2.1 - 2.6 and 3? Have each of these questions been subject to a public interest test as required by legislation?

c. Please could you clarify why Section 40 exemption has been invoked to refuse question 1.4 as this is not a request for personal data?

d. Please could you clarify why question 1.5 has not been addressed?

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Buxton

FOI, South Yorkshire Police

Dear Mr Buxton,

Thank you for your email.

I have answered your queries below, I have quoted your queries for ease of reference.

“a. You have referred me to transcripts of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd 'Op Quito Silver Planning' meetings held on 5/2/18, 19/02/18 and 23/02/18. Please can you clarify whether one of these is the meeting referred to as an "Initial Risk Assessment Meeting" in FOIR 20181418?”

Supt McCurry has commented, “We have released transcripts of these three risk assessment meetings.”, therefore the answer to your clarification question is , yes.

“The statement; “The new protesters, believed to be professional, are aggressive in nature and have been directing this towards the workers. They have pulled on and cut safety ropes of Amey workers, olive oil has been sprayed on trees (this could cause a chainsaw to slip), and one tree was discovered to have been studded with nails and glass. Protesters are also taking their, often very young, children to protests.” is not visible in any of the three transcripts.”

This is a statement rather than a question, but as the statement is intelligence it will attract the Section 31(1) exemption applied to the other questions surrounding intelligence.

“b. Which subsection of Section 31 are you invoking as an exemption with regards to questions 2.1 - 2.6 and 3? Have each of these questions been subject to a public interest test as required by legislation?”

The decision notice quotes Section 31(1) and details the public interest test that was carried out.

“c. Please could you clarify why Section 40 exemption has been invoked to refuse question 1.4 as this is not a request for personal data?“

Section 40 was quoted incorrectly for question 1.4, as the names were redacted from the meeting minutes, therefore there was no impact on personal information. The answer to this question has been answered in the response to FOI 20181418 identifying that it was a contractor who raised the concerns,

“d. Please could you clarify why question 1.5 has not been addressed?”

Question 1.5 had been answered in the original response therefore, I didn’t feel that it needed repeating. There is no recorded information regarding this question, however were information to be held it would be exempt under Section 31(1).

If you remain dissatisfied I have provided you with the contact details for the ICO.

Regards

Gary Slinn LLB (Hons)
Deputy Information Compliance Officer
Information Compliance Unit
South Yorkshire Police
Performance and Governance
Unit 20
Churchill Way
Sheffield
S35 2PY

**Data Protection law has changed – please make sure you have completed the mandatory NCALT e-learning package on Managing Information**

show quoted sections

Dear Gary Slinn,

Thank you for your email dated 14th August.

From your response can I conclude that the "Initial risk assessment meeting" as referred to by Supt McCurry is in fact one of the 'Op Quito Silver Planning' meetings?

This statement; “The new protesters, believed to be professional, are aggressive in nature and have been directing this towards the workers. They have pulled on and cut safety ropes of Amey workers, olive oil has been sprayed on trees (this could cause a chainsaw to slip), and one tree was discovered to have been studded with nails and glass. Protesters are also taking their, often very young, children to protests.” Is a statement that is already in the public realm and as such any continued redaction is unwarranted, I am seeking to ascertain whether it is actually contained in the transcripts of "OP Quito Silver Planning" meetings to which I have been referred, as it is currently not visible. Please could you release a version of the transcripts that include the above statement?

I have carefully reviewed Section 31(1)(a) exemption and it is clear that it does not apply to my requests for information.

I include ICO guidance below for easy reference:
31.—(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice –
Section 31(1)(a) the prevention or detection of crime;
18. Section 31(1)(a) will cover all aspects of the prevention and
detection of crime. It could apply to information on general
policies and methods adopted by law enforcement agencies.
For example, the police’s procedures for collecting forensic
evidence, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs procedures for
investigating tax evasion.
19. The exemption also covers information held by public
authorities without any specific law enforcement
responsibilities. It could be used by a public authority to
withhold copies of information it had provided to a law
enforcement agency as part of an investigation. It could also be
used to withhold information that would make anyone,
including the public authority itself, more vulnerable to crime
for example, by disclosing its own security procedures, such as
alarm codes.
20. Whilst in some instances information held for the purposes of
preventing or detecting crime will be exempt, it does not have
to be held for such purposes for its disclosure to be prejudicial.

Please could you review your response and release the information requested (FOI Ref 20191481)?

I note that the Public Interest Test you refer to is a generic proforma that is dated 15th June 2018. Please could you clarify whether a Public Interest Test was implemented specifically for and regarding my FOI Ref 20191481?

I would also draw your attention to the following ICO guidance:
Public interest in favour of disclosure.
Probity of investigations.
105. It is important that the public have confidence in the public
authorities responsible for enforcing the law. There is a general
public interest in disclosing information that promotes
accountability and transparency in order to maintain that
confidence and trust.
106. It is not uncommon for allegations to be made that an
investigation lacked thoroughness or was biased. A mere
allegation of lack of probity will not be sufficient to justify
attributing weight to this argument. There must be a plausible
basis for suspicion of lack of probity, even if it is not actually
proven. A plausible basis could be found in the facts and the
content of the requested information. Where information would
reveal wrongdoing in the conduct of an investigation this would
be a strong public interest factor in favour of disclosure. The
outcome of any independent investigation or review of probity
may be relevant, as may evidence of public concern.

Please could you confirm the date of the "Tactical Plan" referred to by Supt. McCurry in your reply dated 13th August?

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Buxton