Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) is concerned with Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources.  I am using this part of the act for reference as your request is regarding ‘a person or persons under surveillance'. 

Following a search of our records and in respect of Directed Surveillance only:

Your request for information has been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested. Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires South Yorkshire Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:  

(a)        states that fact;

(b)        specifies the exemption in question and;

(c)        states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies. 

The following exemption applies to the disclosure of the information: 

Section 12 - Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit

In order to ascertain the number of individuals subject to, the nature of, or the crime category recorded for each instance of surveillance would necessitate a manual trawl through each case.  This has been estimated at taking one person, working full time, a minimum of three weeks - or approximately 111 hours. 

The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 provide that the cost limit for non central government public authorities is £450. This must be calculated at the rate of £25 per hour, providing an effective time limit of 18 hours. 

However, we can supply you with the number of authorities for Directed Surveillance by financial year.  Please find the figures for South Yorkshire Police in the table below. 

Year	Number of authorities
2004/2005	653
2005/2006	516
2006/2007	425
2007/2008	544
2008/2009	547

In respect of all other information: 

Section 1 of the Freedom of information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.  The second duty 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed a s being held.  Where exemptions are relied upon, Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which

(a) states that fact;

(b) specifies the exemption in question and;

(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies. 

South Yorkshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the freedom of Information Act does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions: 

Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies

Section 24(2) National Security

Section 30(3) Investigations

Section 31(3) Law enforcement 

This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist. 

Section 23 is an absolute exemption but sections 24(2), 30(3) and 31(3) are qualified and require us to carry out a public interest/balance test before they can be relied upon. 

DISCLOSURE CONSIDERATIONS 

To confirm or deny any Police actions in this specialist tactical area would undermine ongoing investigations , reveal policing techniques, risk the identification of individuals, the possibility of revealing involvement of any exempt bodies and the risk of undermining national security.  

South Yorkshire Police is committed to demonstrating proportionality and accountability regarding surveillance techniques to the appropriate authorities.  However, if we were to either confirm or deny these questions, other covert surveillance tactics will either be compromised or significantly weakened.  If South Yorkshire Police denies a tactic is used in one request but then exempts for another, requesters can determine the ‘exempt' answer is in fact a technique used in policing.  The impact could undermine national security, any on-going investigations and any future investigations, as it would enable targeted individuals/groups to become surveillance aware.  This would help subjects avoid detection and inhibit the prevention and detection of crime. 

Factors favouring compliance with Section 1(1)(a) - to confirm or deny

Confirming or denying that these powers have been used would increase public scrutiny of police actions and in turn hold the police service to account.

It is appreciated that members of the public will naturally be interested in techniques employed for surveillance. Likewise, we also understand some people believe surveillance (in any form) is used too widely, and therefore an unnecessary intrusion into their privacy. Confirmation or denial of the use of this operational tactic will enable better informed public debate. 

Factors favouring the need to neither confirm nor deny 

To confirm or deny if this information does or does not exist will render policing tactics ineffective as previously outlined. A legislative scrutiny framework already exists  for RIPA activity: Police surveillance activity is subject to annual inspection by the Interception of Communications Commissioners Office (IOCCO) and Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC).  These inspections assess each constabulary's compliance with the legislation and a full report is submitted to the Prime Minister and Scottish Ministers containing statistical information. 

In respect of all three qualified exemptions I have determined that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in confirming whether we hold the information.     

In accordance with Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Duty to provide advice and assistance - you may find the following website of interest as it details annual reports from the Office of Surveillance Commissioner.

www.surveillancecommissioners.gov.uk/about_annual.html