Arrests and/or seizures made in relation to wildlife crimes from January 2018 to July 2022
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.EIR.22.000019
I note you seek access to the following information:
I'd like to submit a freedom of information request relating to wildlife crime.
I would like the details of any arrests and/or seizures made in relation to wildlife crimes. In particular, I'm looking for cases related to poaching, egg poaching, smuggling from overseas/illegal wildlife trade, non-registration of birds and animals that require licensing, and illegal hunting.
If it's helpful to be even more specific (I am unsure how many cases there may be), poaching, hunting and trade are my top three priorities.
I'd like to see the details of incidents from 2018 onwards. Again, if it's helpful to specify more, I'm happy to limit the search to 2019 onwards.
I'd like as much information as is possible to be provided with, however I appreciate there are limits with regards to what I can know. The list below outlines the information I'm looking for (in an ideal world!):
- Name of person arrested (if not possible, age and gender would be helpful)
- location of arrest or seizure
- date of arrest or seizure
- details of any items seized
- reason for arrest or seizure
- whether charges were brought
- any other details relevant to the case (e.g. if a smuggler, where the items have come from)
I would like this for crimes that fit the following criteria:
- Took place after 2018
- Relate to wildlife crimes (e.g. illegal poaching, egg poaching, illegal wildlife trade/importation, illegal hunting, keeping species that need licensing without the proper registrations)
I totally appreciate this is not necessarily possible in its entirety, and I'm happy to further specify or narrow my request - or simply receive any information you can provide.
I'm working with a wildlife crime agency at the moment, who have employed investigative journalists to create a mapping tool of wildlife crime carried out in Europe. I want to emphasise that the focus of this work is not on the police or any potential criticisms of any institutions, but simply to keep track of how serious the problem is.
Decision
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement,
Section 38(1) - Health and safety
Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) - Personal information
Reason for decision
Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for information can be answered.
The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.
The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.
To disclose the name of the individual arrested and the location the person was arrested at could cause an individual to be identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation. This cannot be allowed. Consideration must also be given to the mental state of the individual/victim/families if identified.
Section 31 – Law Enforcement - Disclosure of the name of the individual arrested and the location the person was arrested at risks the identity of the suspect being revealed. This may cause an investigation to collapse as the individual could be targeted, or undermine the confidence in the police.
Disclosure of the information requested could identify persons captured by the scope of this request. Individuals could analyse the information (and along with local knowledge) identify the individual concerned. This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and also prejudice the MPS's ability to fairly conduct an investigation.
Section 38(1) – Health & Safety - Section of the Act provides an exemption from the disclosure of information which would, or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of any individual.
Disclosure of the name of the individual arrested and the location the person was arrested at will provide any person with knowledge of the offence, incident and where it took place, to use the information disclosed to work out who the individual may be and cause that person (or others) much distress and harm. This could compromise the mental health of the person involved or/and the ongoing or any other future investigation.
Disclosure of the name of the individual arrested and the location the person was arrested at could jeopardise the mental state and safety of the individual. This will not be in the public interest. If this information was to fall into the hands of others involved/aware the information can be used to undermine the security and safety of the wider community and/or the person concerned.
The harm identified above, is reduced by not disclosing the identity of the subjects captured by this request and the location of their arrest.
It is imperative that the safety and identity of those captured by this request, or the compromising of the investigation was not a factor, when trying to be transparent in disclosing as much information as possible. The MPS has a duty of care to the communities served. In view of the arguments provided above, it is our opinion, that disclosure in full of the name of the individuals arrested and the location of where the person was arrested cannot be permitted.
The MPS response for the rest of this request permits the disclosure of statistical information which is not likely to lead to the identification of individuals.
Section 40 - Personal Information - Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is Personal Data.
The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption. The information sought under your Freedom of Information request includes the following which we consider to be Personal Data
- The name of the individual arrested and the location the person was arrested at
Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data the section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.
In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3A, 3B and 4A of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as amended by Schedule 19 of the Data Protection Act 2018, specifically Section 58 of that schedule).
The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.
There are six Data Protection principles set out in the 2018 act and these can be found at section 34.
In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which states that the processing (in this case the disclosure) of the data must be both lawful and fair.
It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 31, 38 & 40 to the same pieces of information.
Disclosure
Please see attached spreadsheet holding the data we can provide:
Please note that we were unable to find any details on any items seized.