FOI 986-2023 / Oct 2023 / Unmanned aerial vehicles
I write in connection with your request for information which was received on 24th October 2023 as follows:
I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information from Warwickshire Police about the use and deployment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV).
Please may you provide me with answers to the following:
Q1. Do you use UAV’s at crime scenes? If so what type of scenes, Arson, missing persons, etc. and how many times have they been used in the last two years?
Q2. Do you use your own UAV’s or subcontract UAV services from an outside body/Police force? If so which company/body do you use and what type of UAV?
Q3. Have you ever used UAV’s to help search for clandestine graves or missing persons?
Q4. How many staff do you have trained to deploy a UAV? What has been the cost of staff training?
Q5. Are your UAV operators police officers or staff?
Q6. If the answer is yes to any of the above what has been the approx. cost internally and externally?
On 25th October 2023 a request for clarification was sent to you as follows:
Regarding Q6, we are not clear what costs you are referring to, where you have asked, ‘if the answer is yes to any of the above what has been the cost internally and externally’, therefore we require further details about what recorded information you are requesting. It may further assist if examples can be given.
In order to provide assistance, any activity associated with day-to-day policing, i.e. investigations and enquiries carried out by officers, including missing persons etc, is likely to be classed as part of normal duties, and therefore no specific cost code would be assigned for separate elements of the police work.
On 25th October 2023 you provided the following information:
Regarding question 6 if you have used UAV’s at a crime scene what has been the cost if the work has been subcontracted outside of the force.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in providing the response to your request and for any inconvenience this may have caused. Please find the Warwickshire Police response set out below.
Q1 response: Yes, deployments are carried out for a range of reasons including searches for missing persons and crimes in progress. I can advise that between November 2022 and the date of the request, there have been 116 flights. Prior to this date, specific details regarding the purpose of the flight were not recorded.
Q2 response: We use our own.
Q3 response: Yes, we have used them for missing persons.
Q4 response: We have 9 trained pilots. Total cost of training was £5,500 (excluding VAT).
Q5 response: Police officers.
Q6 response (following clarification): Not applicable.
In addition, Warwickshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any further information relating 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 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 31(3) Law enforcement
Section 23 is an absolute exemption which means that the legislators have identified that harm would be caused by release and there is no requirement to consider the public interest test.
Sections 24(2) and 31(3) are qualified, prejudice-based exemptions and require evidence of harm and a public interest test to be carried out before they can be relied upon.
Evidence of Harm
As you will be aware, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the use of drones for covert purposes, would show criminals what the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the force are, allowing them to target specific areas of the UK to conduct their criminal/terrorist activities. Confirming or denying the specific circumstances in which the police service may or may not deploy drones, would lead to an increase of harm to covert investigations and compromise law enforcement. This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.
The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored, and it is well established that police forces use covert tactics and surveillance to gain intelligence in order to counteract criminal behaviour. As such, it has been previously documented in the media that many terrorist incidents have been thwarted due to intelligence gained by these means.
Confirming or denying that Warwickshire Police hold any other information in relation to covert use of drones, or unmanned aerial devices, would limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists would gain a greater understanding of the police forces’ methods and techniques, enabling them to take steps to counter them. It may also suggest the limitations of police capabilities in this area, which may further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by exposing potential vulnerabilities. This detrimental effect is increased if the request is made to several different law enforcement bodies. In addition to the local criminal fraternity now being better informed, those intent on organised crime throughout the UK, will be able to ‘map’ where the use of certain tactics are or are not deployed. This can be useful information to those committing crimes. It would have the likelihood of identifying location-specific operations which would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and future prosecutions as criminals could counteract the measures used against them.
Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 24
Any further information if held simply relates to national security and confirming or denying whether it is held would not actually harm it. The public are entitled to know what public funds are spent on and what security measures are in place, and by confirming or denying whether any other information regarding the covert use of drones is held, would lead to a better informed public.
Factors favouring Neither Confirming Nor Denying for Section 24
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would render Security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying whether any other information is held regarding the covert use of drones would provide an insight into Warwickshire Police. This would enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police and about how the police gather intelligence. It would greatly assist in the quality and accuracy of public debate, which could otherwise be steeped in rumour and speculation. Where public funds are being spent, there is a public interest in accountability and justifying the use of public money.
Some information is already in the public domain regarding the police use of this type of specialist equipment and confirming or denying whether any other information is held would ensure transparency and accountability and enable the public to see what tactics are deployed by the Police Service to detect crime.
Factors against Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the covert use of drones would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and would also hinder any future investigations. In addition, confirming or denying methods used to gather intelligence for an investigation would prejudice that investigation and any possible future proceedings.
It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and terrorists and so to confirm or deny any other information is held concerning specialist covert tactics would lead to law enforcement being undermined. The Police Service is reliant upon all manner of techniques during operations and the public release of any modus operandi employed, if held, would prejudice the ability of the Police Service to conduct similar investigations.
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held in relation to the use of drones would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. Warwickshire would not wish to reveal what tactics may or may not have been used to gain intelligence as this would clearly undermine the law enforcement and investigative process. This would impact on police resources and more crime and terrorist incidents would be committed, placing individuals at risk. It can be argued that there are significant risks associated with providing information, if held, in relation to any aspect of investigations or of any nation's security arrangements so confirming or denying that any information is held, may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we may be trying to protect.
Balance test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and Warwickshire Police will not divulge whether any information is or is not held regarding the use of drones if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk, undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that Warwickshire Police is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and all areas of operations carried out by police forces throughout the UK.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The use of drones in any covert capacity is a sensitive issue that would reveal police tactics and therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any information is held regarding the use of drones is not made out.
However, this should not be taken as indicating that any information that would meet your request does or does not exist.
Every effort has been made to ensure that the information provided is as accurate as possible.
Your attention is drawn to the below which details your right of complaint.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write or email the Freedom of Information Unit quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
Freedom of Information Officer
Freedom of Information Unit
Warwickshire Police
PO Box 4
Leek Wootton
Warwickshire
CV35 7QB