1. The number of homes at which firearms have been discharged in suspected gang attacks within the past three years 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10 and to date this year. 

After performing a search on our crime management system for crimes which have been tagged both as ‘MO Gang-related’ and ‘Firearms’ within a dwelling we have brought up a nil response.

However, this does not mean that there are no suspected gang-related firearms attacks in homes. They may be undetected (i.e. no suspect) or the suspect/accused may not be known to be part of a gang.

In accordance with 1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I can advise you that South Yorkshire Police does hold the information you request.

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

I have checked on our crime management system and there are over 1,000 crimes relating to firearms. To investigate each individual crime to discover if it was suspected to be a gang attack would involve going through each crime file and contacting the officers involved. It would be difficult to put an exact estimate on the amount of time it would take to complete this task but it would be well over the 18 hour limit. 

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.

2. The number of cases where firearms gang attacks on homes has resulted in an individual or family being re-housed within the past three years 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10 and to date this year. 

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

1. states that fact
2. specifies the exemption(s) in question and
3. states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

South Yorkshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information relevant to your request as the duty in section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions.

Section 31 (3) Law Enforcement

‘The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1 (1) (a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).’

Those who witness gang attacks have provided us with important information and risked their lives in order to do so. Some may continue to do so to assist us in bringing offenders to justice and are less likely to provide us with further assistance if we reveal information as to their whereabouts.

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring disclosure

• Increase public understanding of the lengths that officers go to in order to re-house individuals.

Factors against disclosure

• Loss of confidence in the Police Witness Protection Program.

Balancing Test

After consideration, I am of the opinion that it is in the greater public interest for our Witness Protection programme to remain intact. The release of this information may harm our law enforcement capabilities if our witnesses lose any confidence in the police.

It is in the wider public interest for our witnesses to continue to assist us in bringing criminals to justice.

Section 38 (2) Health and Safety

‘The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or the extent that, compliance with section 1 (1) (a) would, or be likely to, have either or the effects mentioned in subsection (1).’

A section 38 exemption has been applied as the disclosure of this information would, or would be likely to endanger the physical health & safety of individuals.

South Yorkshire Police would not even want to confirm that it re-houses people who are the victims of gang attacks as to do may be all the intelligence that is required by persons seeking out people and their families.

South Yorkshire Police have a duty to protect the lives of any living individual. The disclosure of how many individuals we have re-housed would enable a person to build up an awareness of each force’s intelligence in regards to witness locations. For instance, if in the UK last year there were 30 individuals re-housed and we disclosed that South Yorkshire Police had re-housed 20- it would reveal to offenders that they were more likely to find their target within our force area.

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring disclosure

• Increased awareness of how individuals are supported and looked after when a witness to a crime.
  • If individuals see that a large number of individuals have been re-housed, then they may no longer feel that their safety would be compromised and others may come forward with information regarding a crime.

Factors against disclosure

• Those individuals that have volunteered themselves as a witness to a crime may be less reluctant to come forward if information is revealed regarding witness protection and their health and safety is put at risk.

Balancing Test

The health and safety of individuals is of paramount importance. There is a stronger public interest in ensuring that witnesses are safe than the interest in releasing this information. 

When others are aware of the importance that we attach to the safety of individuals and feel safe in providing information, this would increase our effectiveness in fighting crime. This would outweigh any benefit in the public being aware of how many individuals we have re-housed.