Reviews in Detention PACE Act s40 and Outcome of Court time extension requests

The request was refused by Cheshire Constabulary.

Dear Cheshire Constabulary,
Graham Payne

19 June 2010

Dear Cheshire Constabulary,

Please provide the following information:

For the period 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (OR for the latest annual period available if your statistical periods differ):

1) List of all 'designated police stations' as defined in PACE Act
1984 s35.

For Each police station in 1) above:

2) The total number of persons detained for more than 6 hours but
less than 15 hours after the 'relevant time' of each person.

3) The total number of persons in 2) above whose first review due
at 6 hours after the relevant time under PACE Act 1984 s40 was
'postponed' under s40 (4) by:
a) less than 3 hours
b) more than 3 hours but less than 6 hours
c) more than 6 hours

4) The number of persons in 2) above:
a)whose detention was not reviewed during this period of their
detention
b) who were released from detention by the review officer on bail
or otherwise

5) The total number of persons detained for more than 15 hours
after the 'relevant time' of each person

6) The total number of persons in 5) above whose subsequent review
due at 15 hours after the relevant time under PACE Act 1984 s40 was
'postponed' under s40 (4) by:
a) less than 3 hours
b) more than 3 hours but less than 6 hours
c) more than 6 hours

7) The number of persons in 5) above
a) whose detention was not reviewed during this period of their
detention.
e) whose detention was not reviewed on BOTH the first and
subsequent due occasions.
f) who were released from detention by the review officer on bail
or otherwise

8) The number of persons
a) in 2) above who were detained without charge.
b) in 5) above who were detained without charge.

9) The number of persons detained without charge in 8) a) and b)
who were presented to Court to request an extension of detention
time.

10) The number of persons in 9) above where the Court
a) Granted the request for extended detention
b) Refused the request, and ordered release of the detainee on
bail or otherwise.

11) ONLY If the information requested is NOT AVAILABLE please:
a) Inform me what statistics are held by Cheshire Constabulary relating to PACE Act
1984 s40 'review of detention' AND the Outcome of Court requests
for extension of detention time.
b) Provide these statistics in substitute for the requested
information.

The presentation of the information requested in table format would
be acceptable if that is more convenient to you.

Thank you

Yours faithfully,

Graham Payne

Yours faithfully,

Graham Payne

Cheshire Constabulary

Dear Graham Payne,

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence received 21/06/2010 which is
being dealt with as a request for information in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I am in the process of dealing with your request and will respond in due
course and in any case by 19/07/2010. Please contact us by e-mail at
[Cheshire Constabulary request email] if you have any further enquiries.

Regards

Information Compliance
Tel: 01244 614176
===================================
Cheshire Constabulary Headquarters
Clemonds Hey
Oakmere Road
Winsford
CW7 2UA
===================================

This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only.
Please notify the sender if received in error. Internet email
is not to be treated as a secure means of communication.
Cheshire Constabulary monitors all Internet and email activity
and requires it is used for official communications only. Thank
you for your co-operation.

Cheshire Constabulary

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Payne,

I refer to your recent request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 as set out below:

Please provide the following information:

For the period 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (OR for the
latest annual period available if your statistical periods differ):

1) List of all 'designated police stations' as defined in PACE Act
1984 s35.

For Each police station in 1) above:

2) The total number of persons detained for more than 6 hours but
less than 15 hours after the 'relevant time' of each person.

3) The total number of persons in 2) above whose first review due
at 6 hours after the relevant time under PACE Act 1984 s40 was
'postponed' under s40 (4) by:
a) less than 3 hours
b) more than 3 hours but less than 6 hours
c) more than 6 hours

4) The number of persons in 2) above:
a)whose detention was not reviewed during this period of their
detention
b) who were released from detention by the review officer on bail
or otherwise

5) The total number of persons detained for more than 15 hours
after the 'relevant time' of each person

6) The total number of persons in 5) above whose subsequent review
due at 15 hours after the relevant time under PACE Act 1984 s40 was
'postponed' under s40 (4) by:
a) less than 3 hours
b) more than 3 hours but less than 6 hours
c) more than 6 hours

7) The number of persons in 5) above
a) whose detention was not reviewed during this period of their
detention.
e) whose detention was not reviewed on BOTH the first and
subsequent due occasions.
f) who were released from detention by the review officer on bail
or otherwise

8) The number of persons
a) in 2) above who were detained without charge.
b) in 5) above who were detained without charge.

9) The number of persons detained without charge in 8) a) and b)
who were presented to Court to request an extension of detention
time.

10) The number of persons in 9) above where the Court
a) Granted the request for extended detention
b) Refused the request, and ordered release of the detainee on
bail or otherwise.

11) ONLY If the information requested is NOT AVAILABLE please:
a) Inform me what statistics are held by Cheshire Constabulary
relating to PACE Act
1984 s40 'review of detention' AND the Outcome of Court requests
for extension of detention time.
b) Provide these statistics in substitute for the requested
information.

The presentation of the information requested in table format would
be acceptable if that is more convenient to you.

In accordance with section 1(1) (a) of the Act our response is provided
below;

From our assessment, we estimate that compliance with your request would
exceed the appropriate costs limit under section 12 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. This is currently £450. The statistical information
you have requested is not information that the Constabulary would normally
collect. The raw data from which to collect such information is held on
individual custody records. There were 25888 arrests made in the 12 month
period covering your request. To retrieve the information and extract the
information to be disclosed from other information would cost approximately
£162500 based on 6500 hours of work for one person.

Such costs are prohibitive. No alternate data is collected, we must
therefore refuse your request.

If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.

If you are not satisfied with the decision applied in this case I enclose
for your attention a copy of the Constabulary's appeal procedures.

(See attached file: FOI Appeals Procedures.Final version.doc)

Regards

John Gannon
Information Compliance
Tel: 01244 614176

show quoted sections

William Old left an annotation ()

Hmmm... it was probably an oversight (but sloppy procedure by the Constabulary if it was!) but the very first part of the request:

1) List of all 'designated police stations' as defined in PACE Act 1984 s35

... should have taken only minutes to deal with, not 6,500 hours.

Graham Payne left an annotation ()

Response to William Old.
Sadly William I think that there may be more than sloppy procedure here. My FOI request was prompted by three cases of my personal knowledge where a detained person was held in excess of 12 hrs without charge. No review at all of the detention was made in any of these cases. One two occasions the detainee was released without charge, as no evidence was produced to justify the arrests, and the third case was released charged with a minor misdemeanor, eventually receiving a small fine at court. Incapacity through drugs or alcohol or 'asleep' were not factors in the failure to review. Two cases concerned Cheshire Constabulary and one GMP. As I have only a very limited experience with detained persons, I was curious to see if the failure to review was common. That no statistical records appear to be publicly available gives me no reassurance that the practice is not routine.