Demonstration 24/11/2010

Reference number: 
20100561
Request date: 
11/2010
Response date: 
21/12/2010 (All day)
Request details: 

1.         Please could you tell me the total financial cost (staff and resource costs) of the policing operation which took place in Sheffield on Wednesday, 24 November 2010, presumably in response to a NUS Day of Action protesting against government funding cuts to Higher Education (an accurate approximate estimate of these costs is acceptable).

 

A.        In calculating this cost please include the cost of the police helicopter which appeared to be an integral part of the operation (you may need to provide an estimate of this cost, but that should be the total operational cost of keeping the aircraft in the air and staffed X by the number of hours dedicated to the operation.

 

B.        Could you tell me the total number of man hours dedicated to the police operation?

 

C.         What was the police overtime bill as a result of this operation (could you tell me the numbers of police man hours (including all 'police family) for overtime and the total cost of the overtime)

 

In detailing the costs could you also state:

 

2.         The total number of police officers (and 'police family' CPSO's etc.) who took part in the operation.

 

A.        Please could you also further break this down by operational role (police dog handlers; Territorial Support Officers; Mounted officers etc)

 

B.         Did South Yorkshire Police receive any 'mutual aid' arrangements from other police forces in conducting said operation

 

3.         Who will be payinmg for the cost of this policing operation, is the cost from South Yorkshire Police budgets or is the force applying for a central government grant?

 

4.         Please could you provide the justification for the heavy police presence on that day?

 

A.         Which officer or management team was responsible for planning and organising the operation?

 

B.        Was the heavy police presence the result of specific police intelligence indicating a threat to public order or some other threat? If so, what was the nature of the intelligence and how reliable was this intelligence (what was the grading of the intelligence/information source)?

 

C.         Was the heavy police pressence due to a precautionary principle based on concern to avoid the earlier disturbances that took place in London?

 

D.        Was the heavy police presence due to some other perceived threat - please specify?

 

5.         Did the policing operation on Wednesday 24 November 2010 impact any other routine, ongoing or planned policing operations in South Yorkshire”

Exemptions Applied: 

Section 31

SYP response: 

1.         The total cost for policing the protest on 24/11/2010 is £30,244.

This total is made up of the following: -

Staff salaries               £26,672

Refreshments             £     500

Vehicles & resources  £   1,508

Helicopter                    £      704

Overtime                     £      860 (12 staff working 3 hours extended duty)  

2.         124 Police Officers, 23 Police Community Support Officers, 4 Support Staff, 1 Pilot 

A.        27 X Territorial Support Group, 2 X Police Support Units comprising 24 officers to each Unit. 7 X Evidence Gatherers, 5 X Mounted Officers, 14 members of Command Centre, 2 X Support Staff, 46 Safer Neighbourhood Team Officers (including PCSOs) 3 X Air Support staff (1 X Pilot, 2 X Observers). 

B.        South Yorkshire Police did not receive any ‘mutual aide’ from other Forces.

 

3.         “South Yorkshire Police is funded to a level to provide finance for policing events such as protests unless the costs exceed 2% of its budget when Government grants are available for application. Costs associated with this operation will not attract Government Grant.”

4.         “The policing operation was intelligence led and adequately resourced. South Yorkshire Police does not accept that the police presence was heavy given the size of the protest.”

A.        “The policing operation was planned by the Sheffield District Management Team, lead by Superintendent Scothern.”

B.        South Yorkshire Police does hold the information you have requested. 

Your request has now been considered. I am unable 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:   

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

The exemption applicable to this information is that contained within Section 31 (1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (Law Enforcement).

 

PREJUDICE (HARM)

Events of this nature, whilst lawful in themselves, have the potential to be ‘hi-jacked’ by extremist elements intent on using them as a catalyst for the commission of criminal offences. At a lesser level even demonstrations conducted lawfully and peacefully have the potential to cause considerable disruption to the rest of the community. The revelation of intelligence upon which policing operations of this nature are based would in turn reveal the methods by which such intelligence is obtained.  Such a release would allow for the development of alternative organisational practices designed to frustrate the efforts of the police in preventing and detecting crime, apprehending or prosecuting offenders and administering justice.

 

CONSIDERATIONS IN FAVOUR OF DISCLOSURE

Disclosure of the information may allow for greater transparency in the techniques used by police in the acquisition, development and use of intelligence.

 

CONSIDERATIONS IN FAVOUR OF NON-DISCLOSURE

Demonstrations of this nature involve only a small minority of the community but the disruption they cause can be out of all proportion to the numbers involved. This, coupled with the potential for the manipulation of such demonstrations for the commission of often serious offences likely to result in serious injury or large scale damage to property means that the Police must maintain and protect all legitimate techniques at their disposal to combat such criminality and disruption whilst facilitating the right to peaceful demonstration.

 

Balancing Test

The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. These roles are of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge information if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine the prevention or detection of crime.  Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the public as well as the integrity of police investigations and operations.

 

In all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

          C.        “The South Yorkshire Police resources were not calculated on events that     took place in London specifically.”

 

D.        “The South Yorkshire Police presence was deployed to facilitate peaceful demonstration, ensure the rights of the community were maintained and maintain the peace.”

 

5.         “Business continuity was maintained throughout the operation, however when large operations take place, which can include protests, but also football matches and pop concerts, available resources are taken from mainstream policing activity. The result is fewer resources for general policing duties and officers work harder to cover for the absence of their colleagues. This was the case on the 24th November and all SYP officers deployed on the protest and on general police duties were tenacious and resilient to ensure effective policing services were delivered.”