Chapters: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
There is no special definition of the terms used in section 31(1)(a) and (b); the terms should therefore be accorded their natural meaning. They are capable of being applied not only to consideration of particular crimes or offenders, but also to certain types of crime or offender, and crime and offenders in general. The exemption in section 31(1)(a) is designed to cover all aspects of the prevention and detection of crime. Section 31(1)(b) is intended to cover all stages of the apprehension process and the subsequent prosecution of criminal activity, including, for example, making or preparing to make an arrest or an application for an arrest warrant, and all stages of prosecution, including for example making or preparing to make an application for a summons (or 'written charge and requisition').
This section is not restricted to information of any particular description; it turns on consideration of the likely effects of any disclosure. Examples of circumstances in which the prejudicial effects referred to in this part of this exemption are most likely to be relevant could include the following disclosures:
The police play the major role in the prevention and detection of crime in the UK, but they are not the only public authorities who have such a role. There are a number of other bodies who are responsible for law enforcement in a range of areas. These include HM Customs and Excise, the Immigration Service, the Health and Safety Executive, trading standards officers and many others. All such bodies are potentially entitled to rely on this exemption if disclosure would prejudice their ability to prevent and detect crime in their particular area of responsibility.
But the exemption is not limited in its applicability to public authorities with formal crime functions; it may apply to any disclosure likely to prejudice the outcomes and activities in question.
If it is clear that prejudice would, or would be likely to, arise, the balance of the public interest in disclosing and withholding the information must be considered. In common with other prejudice-based exemptions, the nature, degree and likelihood of the prejudice to be caused will need to be taken into account in considering the balance of public interest in disclosure (see part 3.3 for general guidance on the application of the public interest test).
Maintaining confidence in law enforcement and the criminal justice system is crucial to the public interest. This is a public interest consideration which, depending on circumstances, may weigh both for and against disclosure. Much is done through police/community consultation and the media to keep citizens informed about the ways in which the police carry out their responsibilities. But on occasions, there will be some tension between this emphasis on openness and the need to maintain the confidentiality of specific operations or policies. Similar considerations will apply to other law enforcement bodies.
It is particularly important in this context to be aware that "prejudice" may arise on an incremental basis, as well as in respect of a single disclosure. For example, disclosure of information on a single specific police operation designed to apprehend alleged offenders would be likely to be prejudicial, as would disclosures of more generalised information relating to police strategies and tactics where this was considered to undermine legitimate police objectives and hamper future operational activity in view of limiting the value of the strategies and tactics in question once disclosed or providing valuable intelligence to perpetrators of crime.
In weighing the public interest it will be necessary to consider the public interest that applies to the particular case. Examples of considerations which might be specifically relevant to this section include:
Other more complex examples might include disclosing the location of speed cameras - this may reduce the number of offences detected, but still have a positive effect in terms of cutting offending behaviour, at least in specific locations.
Within section 31 itself:
Elsewhere within the Act:
are the most likely areas of overlap. For example, when a government policy was to re-categorise a particular dangerous drug to facilitate stronger criminal enforcement action, premature disclosure of that policy might enable dealers to take evasive action. Open disclosure of strategies to combat benefit fraud have a clear potential to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. Where personal information relating, say, to offenders or police officers is concerned, then section 40 is likely to have to be considered.