MO19 callsigns including firearms support dogs

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.034808

I note you seek access to the following information:

Could you please tell us all of the MO19 call sign's including the Firearms support dog's.

What Does Firearms Dog support come under as MO7 or MO19. And do they carry Firearms while on as Firearms Dog support.

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(a)(b) – Law Enforcement

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 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.

This information has therefore been exempted pursuant to the provisions of:

Section 31(1)(a) and (b) - Law Enforcement - To provide the individual call signs for specific departments and whether Firearms Dog support carry firearms could undermine existing or future investigations, operations and police tactics. It would allow those with ill intent to cause disruption to operational policing and prejudice the prevention and detection of crime. Knowing call signs and associated information for specific areas would allow individuals to speak on the policing network with a level of validity that could lead to major disruption to the force communications network. It would also aide criminals in disrupting events involving these areas.

Releasing such information would give those individuals with the intent to do so, the intelligence required to disrupt police activity. This knowledge would allow those with ill intent to target their offending more effectively which would inevitably lead to an increased likelihood of criminal activity and an increased danger to the public. Any disclosure of information which is likely to undermine the ability to serve the public in preventing and detecting crime can only be considered as being harmful to the public.

In this case, whilst the factors favouring disclosure are important in that it would adhere to the basic principle of being open and transparent, I believe when weighed against the risk of disclosure undermining our ability to prevent and detect crime and hindering our ability to protect the public, then non-disclosure takes precedence.

Therefore, it is our opinion that for these reasons the balance test for disclosure is not made out.

Disclosure

In regard to the first part of question 2, Firearms Dog Support come under MO7.