FOI date
FOI reference
FOI 1757154/23

I refer to the now infamous social media video from this week where an autistic girl was allegedly arrested for referring to a PC as “a lesbian”. In making this request I fully recognise that there is a wider context to the event(s) shown on social media, and will therefore not accept a “you weren’t there” response. It won’t wash, and so I will not accept a generic response to my specific questions below.  
I would like to request: 

- on the date and time of this apparent arrest, how many actual/other crimes were reported in the postcode, which could have been dealt with a police presence? 

Local crime data, down to specific postcode locations, is readily available online via the website - Your area | ( 

- the name and/or PC number of the female officer who was filmed “clenching her fists” at an autistic child in said video, and later gerning her jaw in glee at her being manhandled away; 
- the length of her service in the police (including other forces) to date; 

West Yorkshire Police are unable to provide you with the information requested as this is exempt by virtue of 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. 

- the amount of taxpayers’ money spent sending officers to Leeds Pride recently (this year, recognising that in doing so they were not “on duty”); 

Please see the following previous disclosures for the requested information:
June 2023 FOI 1674105-23 Pride Month | West Yorkshire Police
October 2022 FOI 1307014-22 LGBT Events & Merchandise Costs (

- information on what training there is for police officers arresting autistic / neurodivergent citizens; 

Officers have extensive training on all aspects of communication and how to adapt their style to suit all audiences, including neurodiversity. This is a theme that runs throughout all lessons and all aspects of training including academic learning, practical lessons and officer safety training, which covers arrests.

- information on what training there is for handling citizens with sclerosis (which was a condition that affected Richard III, (not that your offers read Shakespeare, obviously) so don’t pretend it is a fake condition); 

West Yorkshire Police do not hold any recorded information in relation to your request.

The specific condition of sclerosis will not be covered in training as it is not possible to cover every illness or disability with a bespoke lesson. As per our response to the above question, this will be covered in communication lessons, officer training, first aid and risk assessment lessons.

- what, if any, punitive action has or was taken to the officer(s) in question following this debacle.  
West Yorkshire Police are unable to provide you with the information requested as this is exempt by virtue of Section 31 (1)(g)(2)(a)(b) Law Enforcement.

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


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. 
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. 
The reason that we are unable to provide you with this information is covered by the following exemption(s): 
Section 31 (1)(g)(2)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2) – Personal Information

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 31 is a qualified, prejudiced based exemption, I am therefore obliged to conduct a harm and public interest test on the information held, for which my considerations can be found below;

To release information whilst an investigation is currently ongoing, could potentially undermine the investigation. It is important that public authorities have the space to fully investigate any allegations of improper conduct without fear of any opinions entering the public domain and undermining the investigation.
Factors favouring disclosure
There is a strong public interest in public authorities disclosing information relating to internal investigations. To disclose information would adhere to the basic principle of being open and transparent.

Factors favouring non-disclosure
To disclose information prematurely, when an investigation into the conduct of an officer is still ongoing could potentially hinder the efficient running of the case. It is important to protect all investigative material to ensure that a full assessment of misconduct allegations can be made. 

Balancing Test
In conclusion I consider that the factors favouring non-disclosure outweigh the factors favouring disclosure and, as such, I will not be disclosing specific information relating to ongoing investigations. Although disclosure would adhere to the basic principle of being open and transparent, I consider that, when weighed against the risk of prejudicing the efficient running of an investigation, the factors favouring non-disclosure take precedence.