Operation Tonic update

dennis fallon made this Freedom of Information request to Avon and Somerset Constabulary

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Avon and Somerset Constabulary,
I have been frequently reviewing the police website regarding the naming and shaming (NS) of drink or drug drivers over the Christmas and New Year period, which obviously should be a complete dataset so that the police cannot be accused of allowing selected individuals to avoid publicity which would be obviously unfair on those named.
The first NS press release was dated 8th December and quoted "Since Operation Tonic, the annual Christmas campaign, began on Monday December 1, we have charged and named 36 people with drink or drug driving."
"Marcus John Lynk, 42, of Bridgwater, Somerset,Dean George Brown, 28, of, Weston, Bath ,Andrzej Pyzik, 50, of Temple Cloud,Edward Lister, 28, of Langport, Somerset,
Alexander Gordon Peter Dixon, 23, of Tiverton, Devon,Lucy Ferrier-Jones, 24, of Yate, Bristol,Harry James Dunn, 20, of Winterbourne, Bristol,Phillip Adrian Price, 50, of Wotton-under- Edge, Gloucestershire,Mohamed Hassan Musa, 50, of St Pauls, Bristol,
Anthony John Dunn, 51, of Woolavington, Somerset ,Johnathon Dominic McDonald, 24, of Pontypool, Gwent ,Dean Paul Harris, 35, of Clevedon, North Somerset ,Karol Jordan Gasowski, 28, of Bournemouth, Dorset,Jason Anthony Vowles, 28, of Bishopsworth, Bristol,James Alexander Harrison-Bowen, 28, of Wells, Somerset ,Dmitrij Bliumin, 28, of Kingswood, Bristol,Anwar Omer Osman, 29, of Crawley, West Sussex,Michal Wyrwa, 29, of St Anne’s Park, Bristol,Sarah Jane Holland, 30, of Wellington, Somerset,Magdalena Mach, 34, of Avon Park, Bristol,John Edward Christopher Sadgrove, 29, of Bedminster, Bristol,Thomas Henry Headford, 36, of Over Stowey, Bridgwater, Somerset,Simeon John Painter, 27, of Weston-super-Mare,
Eva Eory, 46, of Henbury, Bristol,Julia Wallace, 50, of Saltford, Bristol,James Maximillian, 43, of Horfield, Bristol,Paul James Crocker, 23, of Hartcliffe, Bristol,Michael Francis Butler, 48, of Glossop, Derbyshire ,Billy Roddick, 19, of Knowle, Bristol,Andrejs Capulis, 34, of Bridgwater, Somerset,Michael Ernest Mossman, 62, of Horfield, Bristol,Caroline Randall, 39, of Easton, Bristol,Christian Dominic Slade, 32, of Minehead, Somerset,John Andrew Gotting, 65, of, Frome, Somerset,Abdulaziz Mohammed Alamadi, 59, of Frenchay, Bristol,and Faisal Aluddin Rakin, 25, of Easton, Bristol."

The next Press Release, dated 24th December,indicated, quote"A total of 3,676 drivers have been stopped and spoken to and 106 arrested, of which 54 so far have been charged and named",but unfortunately the additional 18 individuals were not disclosed and,at this stage apparently,there are still 52 arrested individuals who have not been charged and named.

Operation Tonic was a very high profile operation which gathered a lot of informaion which would be in the public interest to disclose, especially as the initial disclosure shows that very few females,compared to males,appear to be driving over the limit.

FOI Q1.For the complete 30 day period of Operation Tonic please confirm the total number of drivers who were stopped, the total number who were breathalysed,the total number who were found to be above the limit and were then arresed, and the total number who were arrested for refusing to be breathalysed.

FOI Q2. For the complete 30 day period of Operation Tonic please confirm the total number of drivers who were subjected to drug testing, the total number who were found to be above the limit and were then arresed, and the total number who were arrested for refusing to be tested.Please also confirm the drugs, if any,identified by the drugs test.

FOI Q3.Please confirm the names,ages, and basic addresses of the 18 individuals missing from the Press Release dated 24th December, and the same data for the remaining motorists arrested and charged up until the end of Operation Tonic, so that the driver gender,age profile, and origin may be plotted.

FOI Q4.After data analysis, for the period of Operation Tonic,for arrested individuals only,please confirm the highest and lowest alcohol levels recorded for both male or female individuals, and the respected total number for males and females arrested and charged.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon

Dear Avon and Somerset Constabulary,
For convenient reference the initial 36 Named and Shamed are listed in the gazette online
http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/1168...

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

#Freedom of Information Requests, Avon and Somerset Constabulary

1 Attachment

 

 

 

Corporate Information Management Department

Force Headquarters, PO Box 37, Valley Road,

Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8QJ

Facsimile 01275 814667

Email foirequests@avonandsomerset.police.uk    

 

     

     

Private Our Reference 1469/14

dennis fallon Your reference  
Date 27 January
<[FOI #245957 email]> 2015

 

Dear Mr Fallon

 

I write in connection with your request for information dated 29^th
December concerning Operation Tonic.

 

Specifically you asked: “I have been frequently reviewing the police
website regarding the naming and shaming (NS) of drink or drug drivers
over the Christmas and New Year period, which obviously should be a
complete dataset so that the police cannot be accused of allowing selected
individuals to avoid publicity which would be obviously unfair on those
named.

The first NS press release was dated 8th December and quoted "Since
Operation Tonic, the annual Christmas campaign, began on Monday December
1, we have charged and named 36 people with drink or drug driving."

 

The next Press Release, dated  24th December, indicated, quote" A total of
3,676 drivers have been stopped and spoken to and 106 arrested, of which
54 so far have been charged and named", but unfortunately the additional
18 individuals were not disclosed and, at this stage apparently, there are
still 52 arrested individuals who have not been charged and named.

 

Operation Tonic was a very high profile operation which gathered a lot of
information which would be in the public interest to disclose, especially
as the initial disclosure shows that very few females, compared to males,
appear to be driving over the limit.

 

FOI Q1.For the complete 30 day period of Operation Tonic please confirm
the total number of drivers who were stopped, the total number who were
breathalysed, the total number who were found to be above the limit and
were then arrested, and the total number who were arrested for refusing to
be breathalysed.

 

As of the date of your request we have stopped a total of 3676 drivers,
and conducted 1395 breath tests.

From this 145 arrests have been made with a total of 12 (of that figure)
have been arrested for refusing or “fail to provide” a breath test. 

 

 

FOI Q2. For the complete 30 day period of Operation Tonic please confirm
the total number of drivers who were subjected to drug testing, the total
number who were  found to be above the limit and were then arrested, and
the total number who were arrested for refusing to be tested. Please also
confirm the drugs, if any, identified by the drugs test.

 

No drivers were subject to drug testing therefore no arrests were made.

 

FOI Q3.Please confirm the names, ages, and basic addresses of the 18
individuals missing from the Press Release dated  24th December, and the
same data for the remaining motorists arrested and charged up until the
end of Operation Tonic, so that the driver gender, age profile, and origin
may be plotted.

 

The names of those charged were published every Monday, therefore the
details of the 18 individuals you refer to were published on the 29^th
December. Likewise details of the remainder of the individuals charged
would have been included in the last publication on the 5^th January.  As
such I believe you are already have these details.

 

Obviously disclosures made on the website of those charged were only
available for a short period of time, and were outside the remit of the
Freedom of Information act. Disclosing those individuals’ details as part
of a Freedom of Information request has different considerations. The
legislation is clear that any information that constitutes personal
information is exempt from disclosure if it relates to or is supplied by
another individual and disclosure of that information would contravene any
of the principles of the 1998 Data Protection Act, in this particular
case, disclosure of this information would contravene Principles 1 and 2
of the Act, whereby personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully
and only obtained for one or more specified purpose or purposes. The
exemption applicable to this is Section 40(2), third party personal
information. This is an Absolute exemption so therefore there is no
requirement to conduct a harm or public interest test.

 

FOI Q4.After data analysis, for the period of Operation Tonic, for
arrested individuals only, please confirm the highest and lowest alcohol
levels recorded for both male or female individuals, and the respected
total number for males and females arrested and charged.”

 

As above this information is only accurate as at the date of your request:

 

+-------------------------------------------------+
|  |Highest alcohol level|Lowest alcohol level|
|------+---------------------+--------------------|
|Female|134 |59 |
|------+---------------------+--------------------|
|Male |135 |43 |
+-------------------------------------------------+

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

C Quartey

 

Freedom of Information Officer

Corporate Information Management Department

 

 

Please note:

1.     Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.

2.     Whilst we may verbally discuss your request with you in order to
seek clarification, all other communication should be made in writing.

3.     Avon and Somerset Constabulary provides you with the right to
request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure (copy
attached).

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear #Freedom of Information Requests,
Thank you for your response which,unfortunately,is unsatisfactory as the data appears to be incomplete and possibly erroneous.
For conciseness I shall detail the nature of my appeal on my next email, but the basic complaint is that Avon and Somerset Police have only named and shamed selected individuals and 18, for some reason, have avoided being named and shamed, and there appears to be an unexplained discrepancy between the number of people arrested during operation Tonic, apparently at least 145,and the final reported total of 82 charged and named at the conclusion of the operation.
The initial press release named 36 individuals, as mentioned in my first email,and a later press release named 27 individuals, but that still does not account for the unnamed 18 individuals.
The 27 individuals named and shamed on last release can be seen at http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/1170...

Steven Michael Golding, 21, of Taunton, Somerset,Ryan James Mulholland, 29, of Yate, Bristol, Doru Lupu, 27, of Brislington, Bristol, Victoria Perryman, 27, of Hengrove, Bristol,Thomas Andrew Blunsden, 28, of Staple Hill, South Gloucestershire, Peter George Smith, 34, of Coombe Dingle, Bristol, Juanito Bonador Garlitos, 49, of Axminster, Devon, Jack Morris, 26, of Knowle, Bristol, Michael Leonard 48, Bath ,Harrison Njuguna Mbugua,42, of Eastville, Bristol, Sadie Gates, 45, of Yeovil, Somerset, Steven Norman Tatler, 24 of Yeovil, Somerset, David Michael Kelly, 33, of Soundwell, Bristol, David Hill, 26, of Kingswood, Bristol, Maximilian Thomas Bull, 24, Weston-super-Mare, Stuart Hayes, 52, of Stoke Gifford, South Gloucestershire, John Michael Tomkins, 52, of Patchway, South Gloucestershire, Ruth Ansa Perry, 40, of Knowle, Bristol, Esther Marie Pugh, 20, of Kenilworth, Warwickshire, Richard Probert, 42, of Felton, Bristol, Frank Austin, 24, of Camerton, Bath, Justin Swaby, 35, of Easton, Bristol, Susan Mark Muir, 60, of Bradley Stoke, South Gloucestershire, Robert Sebastian Kolebacz, 34, of Avonmouth, Bristol, Dawid Mariusz Tarachanowicz, 30, of St George, Bristol, Jason Jonathon Taylor, 45, of Crewkerne, Somerset, David John Dix, 54, of Camerton, Bath,

Naming and shaming can only be a legitimate policy if there are no exceptions for people who may be `influential`, and when I have constructed my appeal request it will be posted in my next email.

Thank you for your help so far.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Tom Hodder left an annotation ()

I'm slightly confused how they refuse to release under FOI, citing the DPA, but they are quite able to release it on their website?

Dear Avon and Somerset Constabulary,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Avon and Somerset Constabulary's handling of my FOI request 'Operation Tonic update'.

I wish to appeal the response to my FOI on the grounds that the data is incomplete and may be inaccurate and require further clarification.
The ACPO policy of `naming and shaming` individuals before they have been convicted of anything can only be justified if all the individuals are named and shamed, otherwise there is a possibility that people `with connections` can corruptly bypass the process.
I have diligently checked the police website regularly throughout December with the specific intent of noting and recording all of the individuals named and shamed and there are still an unidentified 18 people arrested and charged, and many others apparently arrested but were not charged.
Road Safety Superintendent Richard Corrigan stated on conclusion of the Operation, that in total 82 individuals had been charged, with 81 being adults and named and shamed, but Press Releases show that by Dec 8th there were 36 charged, and by Christmas eve only an additional 18 ( total of 54), so by deduction there were only 28 charged during the main post Christmas and New Year period which, if true, seems odd and contrary to intuition.
There is obviously a lot of confusion about this name and shame operation and the public assume that all of the individuals named have by now been convicted and banned for at least 12 months, as the police would have a related responsibility to advertise any innocence or non banning court order to clear the adverse publicity from the release of their personal data.
It`s a very interesting police policy but can only be justified by the release of a complete and accurate dataset, including the correction of any errors

FOI Appeal Ref Q1.

Your response “ As of the date of your request we have stopped a total of 3676 drivers, and conducted 1395 breath tests. From this 145 arrests have been made with a total of 12 (of that figure) have been arrested for refusing or “fail to provide” a breath test”.
I wish to complain, as per the whole of my request, that I requested complete data for the whole operation in the full knowledge that the data would be easily available within 7 days of the request, and therefore this shows an attitude of pedantic unhelpfulness contrary to the public interest.
If your reply is accurate, as of my request date 29th December, please clarify why your Press Release of 24th December advises 3676 stopped, 106 arrested, and 54 charged and named.
This implies that no one was stopped for 5 days and the arrest figure is unreliable, so I would appreciate clarification in the form of the actual number of people stopped, and the number arrested, on a daily basis during each day of Operation Tonic in order to assess the pattern of offending.

FOI Appeal Ref Q2.

Please advise why, if the Operation was promoted as testing for drink and drugs, no declaration was made after the Operation advising that no one was arrested for drug driving, as this would lead all those named and shamed still being in this possibility

FOI Appeal Ref Q3.
Your reply to Q3 is misleading and false.
I checked your website at least once per week and the details of the missing 18 people were not published, and you are wrong to assume they are known to me and this oversight should be corrected for my records.
Please explain, in the public interest, how information can be protected by the FOI or DPA but still be disclosed for a short period of time, because this seems like having a strong fence with a big hole open periodically.

QUOTE “The names of those charged were published every Monday, therefore the
details of the 18 individuals you refer to were published on the 29th
December. Likewise details of the remainder of the individuals charged
would have been included in the last publication on the 5th January. As
such I believe you are already have these details”.
This information from you is false as the 18 unidentified people exist prior to the Press Release of 24 December, and have avoided the naming and shaming process and I would appreciate knowing from your records on which date the missing information was apparently displayed on your website.

FOI Appeal ref Q4.
Please review this response, it does not meet the requirements of knowing the total number of males and females arrested and charged on completion of the Operation, and for completeness the maximum and minimum numbers quoted do not specify breath alcohol or units measured

Sorry to bother you but Operation Tonic was meant to be a deterrent publicity campaign but it seems to have been an unfair shame campaign with individuals just over the limit being put in the same list as those massively over the limit, and certain individuals avoiding the shaming process for unknown reasons.
The data is all on the police records, I would just appreciate it being presented in a format that can be understood to review the pattern of stops, tests and arrests during the complete Operation period.

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

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

Jeff Hines, Avon and Somerset Constabulary

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon

Please find a letter attached in relation to your recent request for an
internal review.

Jeff Hines
Information Access Manager
CIMD
Ext 66305

<<Letter Mr Fallon.doc>>

 

show quoted sections

Dear Jeff Hines,
FOR CONVENIENCE OF VIEWING THIS IS SIMPLY A COPY AND PASTE OF YOUR RESPONSE.
Any furher comments or queries of mine will follow on subsequent emails.

Quote"I am writing in response to your request for an internal review of your recent Freedom of Information (FO) request.

I have reviewed your request and I am satisfied that the response form the Constabulary met the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act). I therefore uphold the original decision of the FOI officer.

The information published on the police website in relation to Operation Tonic was in relation to a specific drink / drive operation over the Christmas and New Year period. This was a proactive publication and the Act was not engaged. This is an important point which underpins the internal review. In simple terms your request for information falls under the Act but the information on the police website does not. This is reflected in my response which is focussed on those matters which fall under the Act. For the avoidance of doubt, the focus and scope of this internal review is the information provided to you in response to your FOI request and not the published information on the police website.

Any decision about the policy to name persons charged with a drink / drive offence on the police website is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998, because it involves the disclosure of personal data.

Any decision to release personal information in response to a request under the Act is a different matter and subject to a potential Section 40 (2) exemption.

Circumstances will occur when personal data may be published under the Data Protection Act for a specific risk assessed and time limited purpose, but not under the Act.

The Act gives an entitlement to recorded information held by the public authority at the time of the request. It does not give a general entitlement to information which is not recorded. The plain fact is that you asked for information for the complete period of Operation Tonic part way through the Operation. The Constabulary therefore did not hold the information sought at the time of the request.

Normally this would have attracted a Refusal Notice under the Act in relation to all the questions which comprised your request. But to be helpful the FOI officer provided the information held at the time in good faith.

With hindsight, it might have clarified the position if a Refusal Notice had been applied at the time and you had been advised that if you specifically wanted the information for the complete period then you needed to make a request at the end of the Operation. There is no provision under the Act to ‘hold’ onto to a request pending the future recording of information.

I accept that for completeness the information provided to you in relation to your question 4 should have included the units measured. In this case it was the level of alcohol in the breath. The current limit in England and Wales is 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath.

Operation Tonic is now complete. Additional information was published on the police website and in various newspapers after the submission of your request which may have addressed a number of your queries. If this is not the case and you still want information, then I ask that you refine your request accordingly and make a new submission under the Act. Please contact the FOI officer if you require assistance.

If you consider the Constabulary has failed to meet its obligations under the Act you have the right to raise the matter with the Information Commissioner who may agree to investigate this matter on your behalf. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at Wycliffe house, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, Telephone 0303 1231113
Yours sincerely Mr Jeff Hines
Information Access Manager"

end of Quote
Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon