FOI Request
Please could you provide copies of all correspondence (emails/text/letters) between the Police and Crime Commissioner Barry Coppinger and Cleveland Police’s Chief Constable Richard Lewis, for the period March 1 2020 until now*.
*(Request received 22 July 2020)
OPCC Response
Attached to the email accompanying this letter is a document bundle containing 186 items which fall within the scope of your request, including 183 email files, two letters and one text screenshot. For ease of access, I have created a document index which provides the name, date and number of the document – plus information about any redactions applied.
FOI 259 – Document Index (application, 35kB)
FOI 259 – Email bundle 1 (application, 16MB)
FOI 259 – Email bundle 2 (application, 18MB)
FOI 259 – Text bundle (application, 124kB)
FOI 259 – Letter bundle (application, 268kB)
The Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner neither confirms nor denies whether additional material is or may be held. More explanation of this follows later in this letter.
The following exemptions have been relied upon and applied in respect of your request:
Section 40(2) Personal Information
This exemption relates to correspondence which includes personal information of which the applicant is not the data subject. This exemption is used when publication of information containing such personal data would contravene the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). S40(2) is an absolute exemption, which means a public interest test is not required.
As the following exemptions are qualified exemptions, they are subject to a public interest test and consideration must also be given as to the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held by the OPCC.
Section 30(1)(b) Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities.
This exemptionapplies to a specific category of information that a public authority currently holds or has ever held for the purposes of criminal investigations, or other types of investigations where the sources are confidential. This is a qualified class-based exemption and a public interest test is required.
Considerations for confirming or denying whether information is held under S30
In favour
To confirm the requested information, if held, would provide the public with additional information about PCC and OPCC roles and responsibilities for policing and crime in the Cleveland area.
Against
The disclosure of information, if held, could prejudice any ongoing or potential future investigations, which would not be in the public interest of Cleveland Police, the OPCC or the public at this time.
Section 31(2)(b) Law enforcement
This exemption applies where complying with the request would prejudice or would be likely to prejudice various law enforcement purposes. This is a qualified prejudice-based exemption and a public interest test is required, in addition to a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held.
Considerations for confirming or denying whether information is held under S31
In favour
The PCC has the legal power and duty to set Cleveland Police’s strategic direction and objectives, to scrutinise, support and challenge the force’s performance, to decide the budget and to hold the Chief Constable to account for the exercise of the functions of his office and of those under his direction and control. There is a public interest in seeking transparency about how the PCC fulfils the above statutory roles and responsibilities in relation to policing and crime. Disclosure of information of this nature, if held, would better inform the public with accurate and detailed information in this regard.
Against
The disclosure of information, if held, could prejudice any ongoing or potential future criminal investigations, compromise the viability of the police service and cause damage to the proper functions of the criminal justice system.
Section 36(2)(c) Disclosure Prejudicing the Effective Conduct of Public Affairs
This exemption applies where complying with the request would prejudice or would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. This is a qualified prejudice-based exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held.
Considerations for confirming or denying whether information is held under S36
In favour
The PCC has the legal power and duty to set Cleveland Police’s strategic direction and objectives, to scrutinise, support and challenge the force’s performance, to decide the budget and to hold the Chief Constable to account for the exercise of the functions of his office and of those under his direction and control. There is a public interest in seeking transparency about how the PCC fulfils the above statutory roles and responsibilities. Disclosure of information of this nature, if held, would better inform the public with accurate and detailed information in this regard.
Against
Under s36, information is exempt if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information would prejudice, or would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information to which this section applies if, or to the extent that, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, compliance with Section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, have any of the effects mentioned in s36.
Balancing test
I have considered the competing public interest arguments and it is my opinion and decision (and that of the qualified person) that having undertaken the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any additional information is held, the appropriate course is neither to confirm nor deny.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of the work of the PCC and OPCC, there is a greater public interest that both the Commissioner and the Office have the ability to fulfil their statutory duties. There are in any event other published mechanisms, in some cases directly accessible to the public, by which the public can have confidence that the PCC performs the legal powers and duties set Cleveland Police’s strategic direction and objectives, to scrutinise, support and challenge the force’s performance, to decide the budget and to hold the Chief Constable to account for the exercise of the functions of his office and of those under his direction and control – such as through the scrutiny panels and external and internal audit arrangements between the Force and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC).
In relation to ongoing and potential future investigations (such as those conducted by Cleveland Police) there is significant public interest in ensuring the integrity of such investigations, in the interest of justice.