I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act. I am looking for information about money paid to police informants. Please could you provide me with the following: 
1. How much money, in pounds sterling, has the force paid police informants – known as Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) – in the past three financial years? (Please could the figures be broken down year-by-year and be provided for 2022/23, 2021/22, 2020/21). 

For each financial year please could the total amount paid to Covert Human Intelligence Sources be stated, as well as the number of Covert Human Intelligence Sources who received payment. 

Please see the following previous response for the 2020/21 and 2021/22 financial years - September 2022 FOI 1307191-22 CHIS Payments (westyorkshire.police.uk)

Please see the below table for the 2022/23 financial year:

Financial Year	Amount
2022/23	£165,709

We are unable to provide the number of CHIS that received payment within the stated period as this is exempt by virtue of Section 30(2) – Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities. 

Regardless of the above provided information, West Yorkshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any further information relevant to the payments of CHIS during the requested periods, as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of Section 23(5) Information Supplied by or Concerning Certain Security Bodies, Section 24(2) National Security and Section 30(3) Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities.

Please see Appendix A for the full legislative explanation as to why West Yorkshire Police can neither Confirm nor Deny, whether any information is held.

2. What was the largest amount paid to an informant/ Covert Human Intelligence Source (CHIS) by the force in each year? Please provide the amount of the largest payment to an informant each financial year.  
Please note, the amount should include the total of all payments to the informant in one financial year – for example, if the same informant received several payments in the financial year, please could the total amount for those payments be provided.
    
West Yorkshire Police are unable to provide you with the information requested as this is exempt by virtue of Section 30(2) – Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities, Section 38(1) Health and Safety and Section 40(2) Personal Information. 

Please see Appendix A, for the full legislative explanation as to why West Yorkshire Police are unable to provide the information.
 

APPENDIX A
 
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities.  A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, state under Section 1(a) of  the Act, whether it holds the requested information and, if held, then communicate that information to the applicant under Section 1(b) of the Act. 
 
The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities, to withhold information that is unsuitable for release. Importantly the Act is designed to place information into the public domain. Information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual, should a request be received. 
 
DECISION
 
Your request for information has been considered and I regret to inform you that West Yorkshire Police cannot comply.  This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.   
 
Section 17 of the Act provides: 
 
(1)  A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with Section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which:- 
 
(a) States the fact, 
(b) Specifies the exemption in question, and 
(c) States (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies. 
 
REASONS FOR DECISION
 
The reason that we are unable to provide you with this information is covered by the following exemption(s): 
 
Section 30(2)(b) Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities. 
Section 38(1)(a)(b) Health and Safety.
Section 40(2)(a)(b) Personal Information.

Section 40 is an absolute class based exemption therefore there is no requirement to provide evidence of harm or consider the public interest test. 

To disclose the information would significantly increase the risk of individuals being identified which would breach principle 1 (lawfulness, fairness and transparency) of the Data Protection Act 2018.  

Section 30 is a qualified, class-based exemption and there is a requirement to conduct a public interest test.

Section 38 is qualified, prejudice-based exemptios and there is a requirement to conduct a harm and public interest test.

Harm
CHIS (regardless of their motivation) provide information at particular personal risk to themselves and their families. As previous cases have shown, where a CHIS is identified it can result in substantial physical harm, or mental trauma resulting from the threat of physical harm. This problem is particularly acute in cases relating to serious crime and terrorism where the threat against individuals is substantial.

The health and safety of any individual is a matter of significant concern and importance to West Yorkshire Police. Release of any information that could place an informant at risk of identification and thus risk of physical or mental harm is not suitable for disclosure.

Public Interest Test
Some of the exemptions in the FOI Act, referred to as ‘qualified exemptions’, are subject to a public interest test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in favour of withholding the information, or the considerations for and against the requirement to say whether the information requested is held or not. We must carry out a PIT where we are considering using any of the qualified exemptions in response to a request for information.
 
The ‘public interest’ is not the same as what interests the public. In carrying out a PIT we consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if the information is released or not. The ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need to enable effective law enforcement and to serve the best interests of the public.

Factors favouring disclosure under Section 30: 
There is information within the public domain confirming that police use covert human intelligence sources to assist them with investigations and the effective delivery of law enforcement. Disclosure would enhance the public’s knowledge about how information relating to informants is used by West Yorkshire Police and how the intelligence received assists in day to day investigations and operations to assist the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. Disclosure would also assist in stopping any incorrect rumours or falsehoods relating to how the police store and manage how informants assist the police. It would also allow the public to determine whether the financial outlay by the force to informants is appropriate in comparison to the level of successful prosecutions. 

Factors favouring non-disclosure under Section 30: 
Disclosure of the information requested could identify informant activity within a force area. Over a period of time if several disclosures were made, individuals could analyse the information and identify any sudden peaks or troughs in informant activity. This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and also prejudice our ability to maintain confidential sources. Consequently, the force’s future law enforcement capabilities would be affected. Similarly, the disclosure of the information would highlight when informants have been used which could place those persons, or those suspected of being an informant, in danger. The disclosure of this information would lead to informants losing confidence in the West Yorkshire Police and would impede the recruitment of informants in the future. 

Factors favouring disclosure under Section 38: 
Release of the information would promote openness and transparency of records held by West Yorkshire Police.

Factors favouring non-disclosure under Section 38: 
The release of any information could lead to identification of any individual and consequently endanger the safety, potentially the life, of an individual.

Balancing Test
There is information within the public domain confirming that police use covert human intelligence sources to assist them with investigations and the effective delivery of law enforcement. The Police Service is tasked with protecting the community we serve and solving crime and there is a public interest argument in ensuring we are open and transparent with regard to policing investigations and operations. There is no doubt that for the issues outlined above any disclosure relating to sensitive informant information would jeopardise those important roles. Informants play a vital role in assisting the police, and is based very much on relationships built on trust and the expectation of complete confidentiality West Yorkshire Police would never disclose information which would compromise our tactics or compromise the safety of an individual. It is therefore our opinion that the balance lies in favour of non-disclosure of the information.

In addition to the above, West Yorkshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any further relevant information as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption(s): 

Section 23(5) – Information Supplied by, or Concerning Certain Security Bodies
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 30(3) - Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities.

Section 23 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest. 

Confirming or denying the existence of whether any information is held would contravene the constrictions laid out within Section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in that this stipulates a generic bar on disclosure of any information applied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies.

Section 24 is a prejudiced based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to evidence the prejudice (harm) in disclosure and consider the public interest to ensure neither confirming or denying that information is held is appropriate.

Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to consider the public interest to ensure neither confirming or denying information is held is appropriate.

Harm for neither confirming nor denying that any other information is held for Section 24:
Disclosure of informants data could impact on the recruitment and retention of CHIS in general, due to the perception of (rather than the actual) risk of identification. The disclosure of the requested information would damage national security through discouraging current national security CHIS from cooperating with the police service in other geographical areas, or preventing the recruitment of national security CHIS in the future – regardless of whether the area in question actually currently runs CHIS reporting on serious crime, terrorist or other threats. 

Public Interest Test
Some of the exemptions in the FOI Act, referred to as ‘qualified exemptions’, are subject to a public interest test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in favour of withholding the information, or the considerations for and against the requirement to say whether the information requested is held or not. We must carry out a PIT where we are considering using any of the qualified exemptions in response to a request for information.
 
The ‘public interest’ is not the same as what interests the public. In carrying out a PIT we consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if the information is released or not. The ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need to enable effective law enforcement and to serve the best interests of the public.

Factors favouring confirming or denying that any other information is held for Section 24:
Confirmation or denial that any other information exists relevant to the request would lead to a better informed public and the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent. The information simply relates to national security and disclosure would not actually harm it.

Factors against confirming or denying that any other information is held for Section 24;
Other organisations outside the police service are also widely engaged in rewarding informants in a number of ways, and therefore by confirming or denying that any other information exists relevant to the request would harm the close relationship that exists with such organisations, where trust and confidence in this specific area has been built up in the exchange of information and financial assistance during the Criminal Justice process.

To confirm or deny whether West Yorkshire Police hold any additional information would allow inferences to be made about the nature and extent of national security related activities which may or may not take place in a given area. This could enable terrorist groups to take steps to avoid detection, and as such, confirmation or denial would be damaging to national security. By confirming or denying any policing arrangements of this nature would render national 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 that any other information is held for Section 30:
The confirmation or denial that information is held would provide a greater insight into policing and how resources are allocated to investigate crimes. The confirmation or denial that the information is or is not held would identify how often West Yorkshire Police relies on CHIS within this type of investigation.

Factors against confirming or denying that any other information is held for Section 30:
To confirm or deny that information relevant to this request is held would provide details of any previous or on-going investigations. Informant’s information assists police investigations and provides vital intelligence. To confirm that West Yorkshire Police have used informants with previous investigations and criminal convictions in specific investigations would provide sensitive information that would undermine policing and investigations. Investigations, although complete, may have included information from an informant of the type described and serve to undermine any investigations that have taken place based on the original investigation. 

Balance Test
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. The security and maintenance of investigations are of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine National Security and investigations. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat from criminals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this highly sensitive area. 

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of national security, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. It is therefore our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or not that information is held, is not made out.

No inference can be taken from this refusal that information does or does not exist.