07/04/2024 ‘Outside of the Freedom of Information Act, I can also confirm that this advice has since been superseded by updated advice sent to forces on the 23rd July 2024.’
It appears the conduct is linked to a West Midlands Police FoIA response – read more here.
Disclosure – the NPCC guidance:
From: NPCC CRU Mailbox
Subject: Makes and Models of Stolen Vehicles – Current Stance
Date: 11 July 2024 09:34:00
OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE
POLICE EYES ONLY
Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU
Good morning all,
For your awareness only, following notification of a request asking for makes and models of stolen vehicles, please see below the current national stance, agreed with the policing lead in respect of this information.
Please note this is not a mandatory referral and we do not need to see any requests of this nature going forward. This information is provided to all forces now, solely for clarification of the current national stance as we have become aware that this type of information has previously been disclosed under FOI.
CRU advice:
The policing lead has confirmed their view is that the requested information is NOT suitable for disclosure. The relevant exemptions are s43(2) and s31(1).
The rationale for s43(2) is that revealing under FOI which makes and models of cars are more prone to theft, confirms the names of manufacturers whose vehicles have either a lower level of security, are more often the focus of criminal activity or both. For such information to be publically confirmed under FOI would result in prejudice to the commercial interests of the manufacturers in question, making their position in what is a highly competitive market, weaker. In other words, as a result of information provided under FOI by the force, it would be more likely than not that individuals would refrain from purchasing certain makes of vehicle over others.
S31(1) applies due to the risk that providing data to the public at large risks identifying to everyone, including criminals and those with criminal intent, the vehicles which are most commonly stolen, i.e. have a lower level of security feature or are more attractive to the criminal fraternity. Revealing a vehicle is more susceptible to successfully being stolen increases levels of crime involving any such vehicle, whether than be opportunistic theft or as a target of more organised crime – undermining law enforcement.
Form of Words:
Overall harm:
The information withheld is liable to cause significant commercial prejudice to car manufacturers in the event of its disclosure. Confirming which brands of car are the most stolen is highly likely to discourage the public from purchasing cars from that supplier, severely impacting their ability to compete in the current market.
Additionally, relationships between policing and the suppliers would undoubtedly be damaged by the disclosure of the withheld information. It is important that information is protected which would undermine current and future engagements and proposals the police service may have with car manufacturers.
Disclosure of information about the makes and models of stolen vehicles risks identifying to criminals and those with criminal intent, a detailed picture of the types of vehicles which are most commonly stolen, and as such could be determined to have a lower level of security features. Criminals or those with criminal intent could use this information to then target these type of vehicles with more prevalence, increasing the level of vehicle theft.
Public interest considerations:
Factors favouring disclosure – s43
Disclosing the information would raise awareness of vehicle crime within the general public, potentially promoting greater vigilance and incident reporting to police.
Factors favouring non-disclosure s43:
If information was to be disclosed it risks compromising the commercial interests of vehicle manufacturers who work closely with police to tackle vehicle crime. A disclosure of specific manufacturer names would undermine the commercial viability of these manufacturers in a competitive market. It would also erode the trust and confidence between the police and the manufacturers they work with.
Factors favouring disclosure – s31
Disclosure of the information would reassure the public that the police have accurate knowledge of the types of vehicles which are being stolen and as such can effectively tackle vehicle theft.
Factors favouring non-disclosure s31:
Disclosure of the information would assist offenders and leave significant volumes of vehicles more vulnerable to crime; as a result, the rate of vehicle crime would increase. Disclosure of the requested information would also risk weakening the partnership working approach between police and vehicle manufacturers which would ultimately undermining the police’s ability to combat vehicle theft effectively. A reduction in partnership working and increased risk of crime as a result of disclosure cannot be in the public interest.
If you require any further assistance please contact the CRU,
Kind regards
S.40(2)
National Freedom of Information Referral Officer
National Police FOI & DP Central Referral Unit (NPFDU)
National Police Chiefs’ Council
A. c/o ACRO, PO BOX 481, PO14 9FS
E. S.31(1)
W. www.npcc.police.uk
This guidance was superseded 12 days later, 23/07/2024 – read more here.
