BETAThis is a new service. Your feedback will help us to improve it.
Font Size:
Speech:
Date Responded 26 April 2018

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of access to information held at the time of a request, by a Public Authority (including the Police), subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

You asked:

I would like to be provided with the following information on misconduct allegations against officers for the calendar years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.

1) The number of allegations made against officers of your force concerning negligent or bad faith non-disclosure of evidence or unused material to criminal defendants.

(You may record this for IPCC/IOPC statistics purposes as "Irregularity in relation to evidence/perjury".)

2) For each of these years, the number of those allegations that was:

a) Unsubstantiated/Not Upheld

b) Substantiated/Upheld

c) Local Resolution

d) Discontinued/Dispensed/Disapplied

e) Withdrawn

In Response:

We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and I provide a response for your attention.

Following receipt of your request, searches were conducted with the Professional Standards Department of Northumbria Police. I can confirm that the information you have requested is held by Northumbria Police.

The following information has been extracted from a ‘live’ database and may be subject to the addition and deletion of complaints, complainants and subjects after the initial extraction of data used for the purposes of this request.

All allegations recorded under the allegation type “irregularity in evidence/perjury” were checked. The below figures relate to complaints made by members of the public about officers whose actions have allegedly been irregular in relation to evidence/perjury.

To note the figures provided refer to all allegations within the category of ‘Irregularity  in evidence / perjury.’  The figures relating specifically to non-disclosure allegations cannot be distilled without considerable work and the application of a refusal under Section 12.  However, to avoid your request being refused, we have provided something that may be useful to you.

 

If you decide to write an article / use the enclosed data we would expect that you to take into consideration the factors highlighted above so as not to mislead members of the public or official bodies or misrepresent the relevance of the whole or any part of this disclosed material.

 With the above in mind, I am able to disclose the located information to you as follows.

1.

Year

Number of allegations recorded

2013

48

2014

43

2015

40

2016

20

2017

40

 

2. a) b) c) d) e)

 

Below are the results split into tables year by year.

 

Allegations recorded in 2013

 

Allegation Result

Number of allegations

Unsubstantiated/Not Upheld

34

Substantiated/Upheld

2

Local Resolution

2

Discontinued/Dispensed/Disapplied

5

Withdrawn

5

 

Allegations recorded in 2014

 

Allegation Result

Number of allegations

Unsubstantiated/Not Upheld

28

Substantiated/Upheld

1

Local Resolution

2

Discontinued/Dispensed/Disapplied

9

Withdrawn

3

 

Allegations recorded in 2015

 

Allegation Result

Number of allegations

Unsubstantiated/Not Upheld

17

Substantiated/Upheld

3

Local Resolution

6

Discontinued/Dispensed/Disapplied

10

Withdrawn

4

 

Allegations recorded in 2016

 

Allegation Result

Number of allegations

Unsubstantiated/Not Upheld

11

Substantiated/Upheld

0

Local Resolution

1

Discontinued/Dispensed/Disapplied

4

Withdrawn

0

Special Requirements

4

 

Allegations recorded in 2017

 

Allegation Result

Number of allegations

Unsubstantiated/Not Upheld

3

Substantiated/Upheld

0

Local Resolution

5

Discontinued/Dispensed/Disapplied

21

Withdrawn

1

Special Requirements

2

*of the remaining 8 allegations recorded in 2017, 3 are in the subjudice period and 5 are still live.

 

back to top