No confirmation or denial from police that stations are used for covert operations

The stance was contained in answers to questions posed by the Sentinel in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the PSNI with regard to four police stations in the district.

In September, the Sentinel reported that the overall costs of maintaining and running PSNI station's at Dungiven, Eglinton, Claudy and Donemana in the last year amounted to over 100,000-despite the fact that Claudy and Donemana are now closed.

The figures released by the PSNI earlier this year revealed that Dungiven, Eglinton, Claudy and Donemana cost 114,489.07 to maintain. Dungiven and Eglinton stations operate just a few hours per week whilst, Claudy and Donemana closed in August 2009.

The earlier figures revealed that the total figure for Dungiven PSNI station, which according to the PSNI website opens on Tuesday's between 2-4pm, was 74,149.20-including a rates bill of 47,450.97. Yearly operational costs for Eglinton, which also operates a limited opening period, came to 19,852.35.

Costs for maintaining and operating Claudy and Donemana in this period came to an accumulative cost of 20,487.52.

On the back of these figures reported on in September, the Sentinel launched another FOI request to the PSNI request centred on potential reasons behind the costs of empty and part-time stations.

Whilst, Claudy and Donemana stations are currently going through a 'disposal process' by the PSNI-meaning they are open to buyers for the property-answers received by the Sentinel under FOI revealed the following. The figures referred to relate to the period April 2009 to March 2010.

Although at Claudy, there was a zero entry figure for the use of heating oil in this period, the total electricity bill was still 3,610.65.

At Donemana, the electricity bill was 2,806.35 and the oil bill was 174.45.

Whilst the PSNI did provide a detailed breakdown of the amount of electricity used at Claudy and Donemana in the period, no explanation was provided as to why these costs continued to be accrued at police stations which closed over a year ago. A response placed under the itemised electricity costs for both Claudy and Donemana simply said the stations are fully closed and no longer used by the PSNI.

With relation to the Sentinel's queries on whether any of the bills accrued with relation to the stations were added to by the use of the facilities by covert security operations-we asked if this was as a result of a reaction to an increase in dissident republican activity and if this involved the installation of intelligence gathering or surveillance equipment. The following response was given: "The Police Service of Northern Ireland can neither confirm or deny that it holds the information you requested."

The FOI response in relation to the above questions cites several sections of the FOI Act 2000 which exempt the police from responding one way or the other to the queries. Section 23 of the Act relates to information supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies. In relation to the this the PSNI's FOI officer responded: "Section 23 is an absolute exemption and therefore I am not required to respond any further."

However, three other sections of the FOI Act 200 under which the security queries posed by the Sentinel required testing by a public interest gauge "in relation to their usage in neither confirming nor denying the existence of any information."

With regard to Section 24 (FOI Act 200)-National Security, the response read: "Factors favouring confirmation or denial-Any confirmation or denial that the PSNI holds such information would allow the public to gauge the appropriate use of public funds in carrying out their national security investigations. In addition it would provide appropriate transparency and reassurance that surveillance had been effectively carried out."

However, conversely, the response to the Sentinel's questions on this issue also received the following response: "Factors not favouring confirmation or denial-Confirmation or denial in this particular case would present a high risk in that terrorists would be able to act on information released thereby jeopardising the security or infrastructure of the United Kingdom as they would be able to identify whether their actions were being detected."

Section 30 of the FOI Act 200, relates to Investigations. Again, the PSNI's response to the Sentinel's questions gave pro and anti arguments on our queries in relation to covert operations. The responses in relation to Section 30 stated: " Section 30 Investigations-Factors favouring confirmation or denial. The public interest will always be in providing appropriate information that police investigations are being carried out efficiently and effectively. Confirmation of information held in this case could promote public trust in providing transparency whilst demonstrating openness and accountability into level of surveillance which took place.

"Factors not favouring confirmation or denial-Routine confirmation or denial about the level of information held in any current police investigation could seriously undermine the investigation and prejudice the detection of crime and prosecution of offenders. This would lead to the investigation being prejudiced and would effect the PSNI's future law enforcement capabilities."

Section 31 of the FOI Act 2000 relates to Law Enforcement. With relation to the Sentinel's questions on covert operations the PSNI FOI response stated: "Section 31-Law Enforcement-Factors favouring confirmation or denial-Confirmation or denial around the information that may or may not be held would assist the public to be better informed about surveillance.

"Factors not favouring confirmation or denial-Surveillance provides a valuable role in the prevention and detection of crime and the prosecution of offenders. PSNI operational techniques and capabilities would be placed at risk if relevant information were not to be released which significantly impacted on any current investigation process as this may/may not identify where the PSNI had been successful in obtaining vital evidence as part of their investigation. Such a disclosure would seriously impact on the operational effectiveness of the PSNI in carrying out its law enforcement role."

The FOI Act 2000 places a legal obligation on public authorities to confirm in a response to a request whether or any information exists.

In the case of the Sentinel's latest requests the response from the PSNI states: "The PSNI has therefore determined that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to neither confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in confirming whether or not information is held."

The PSNI response also said: "In this case, the public benefit in being more aware of surveillance is outweighed by the potential risk to individuals and investigations."

The Sentinel also received an example from the PSNI FOI officer of how these rulings are applied. The response read: "A good example would be a simple question such as 'Is John Smith a criminal?' To confirm no information is held would tell the world he is not one but to exempt the information would disclose that he is. In all such cases the only way to protect John Smith is to neither confirm nor deny whether the information does or does not exist.

"However, this should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you requested exists or does not exist."

Police records of maintenance at the four stations fall under the headings of Reactive and PPM. Reactive works as defined in the FOI response to the Sentinel relate to "minor maintenance repairs such as breakdowns and wear and tear."

PPM is defined as :"Preventative and Planned Maintenance-this is regular servicing of equipment and inspection and testing of services installations to comply with statutory or mandatory requirements."

When asked by the Sentinel why each of the repairs or pieces of maintenance was deemed necessary and who ordered them, the FOI response was: "The works are authorised by PSNI Estates and are to comply with minimum statutory and mandatory requirements under Health & Safety legislation or maintain minimum levels of service for the facilities."

The paper also asked the process via which tenders/contracts for repairs and maintenance are awarded. The PSNI response said: "All works contracts are tendered in line with Office of Government and Commerce and department of Finance and Personnel tendering procedures and follow Public Sector Procurement Regulations."

With regard to the part-time police stations in Dungiven and Eglinton, the Sentinel also asked about the number of meetings held in the stations in the last year with regard to specific community, or other issues.We also asked for details onthe numberof people who attended the meetings.

The police response said: "There have not been any meetings."

In a similar vein, the Sentinel asked for the figures for the number of physical calls made by members of the public at Dungiven and Eglinton stations in the past year-excluding the totals for the numbers of people who attended specific issue meetings.

The response from the PSNI's FOI officerin relation to this stated: "There is no method to record this information and therefore no information is attainable. Accordingly, I have determined that Police Station of Northern Ireland does not hold the information to which you seek access.