Our ref: 168/21 I'm a postgraduate research student at the University of Sheffield writing to you regarding a request for information about West Yorkshire Police under Freedom of Information. I would please like to request access to information held on this subject: Policing of the industrial dispute between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers in 1984-1985. In particular, I would please like to specifically request a copy of West Yorkshire Police's review of the policing of the strike. This document should be West Yorkshire Police's equivalent to the report submitted to the South Yorkshire Police Committee Policing The Coal Industry Dispute In South Yorkshire, 1984-1985; Derbyshire Constabulary's review was titled Focus On The Miners Strike. I would like to request the review of the policing in the West Yorkshire Police area. Electronic copies of this information would be preferable. Please see the attached documents. Unfortunately, West Yorkshire Police is unable to provide you all information within the document therefore redactions have been applied by virtue of Section 31(1) Law Enforcement, Section 38(1) Health & Safety and Section 40(2) Personal Information. Please see Appendix A for the full legislative explanation. 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 exemptions: Section 31(1) Law Enforcement Section 38(1) Health & Safety Section 40(2) Personal Information Section 40 is an absolute exemption and there is no requirement to evidence harm or conduct a public interest test. Section 31 is a qualified and prejudice based exemption, as such there is a requirement to provide evidence of harm and conduct a public interest test. Section 38 is an absolute and prejudice based exemption therefore there is a requirement to provide evidence of harm and conduct a public interest test. Section 31 Harm Every effort should be made to release information under Freedom of Information. However to provide information that would undermine operational policing would not be in the public interest. The redacted information includes details of tactics and methods adopted by the police service in order to police large scale disorder which are as relevant today as they were in the 1980s. Should this information be disclosed it would undermine the effectiveness of these tactics. This would have a direct impact on the ability of the police service to achieve its core functions of the prevention and detection of crime. Factors favouring disclosure To disclose this information would adhere to the basic principle of being open and transparent, it would also provide reassurance to the public that West Yorkshire Police have a number of different resources available to prevent and detect crime. Factors favouring non-disclosure Disclosure of the redacted information would place into the public domain tactical details which would undermine the effect use of policing methods. The criminal fraternity would be educated as to the tactics used for specific purposes which would have an adverse effect on West Yorkshire Police’s ability to prevent and detect crime and keep our communities safe. Balancing Test The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As part of that policing purpose, various policing tactics may be used. The Police Service will not divulge information if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of policing tactics. This will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Section 38 Harm The Battle of Orgreave is a very high profile case with emotions of family, friends, witnesses and general members of the public running high. Disclosure of names of specific individuals could lead to their personal safety being placed at risk. In addition to this West Yorkshire Police have a duty of care to the victims and their families. There is an abundance of information already in the public domain by way of media and other avenues. Disclosure of the redacted information has the potential to have adverse effects the survivors’ and the deceased’s relatives. Factors favouring disclosure Disclosure would adhere to the basic principle of being open and transparent and would allow for a more accurate public debate. It would increase public confidence by showing the full extent of information held by West Yorkshire Police. Factors favouring non-disclosure Safety of individuals is of paramount importance, and whilst it is unclear what specific effects disclosure may have on the named individuals or their families, any disclosure which has the potential to cause them significant distress and put their wellbeing and/or mental health at risk will not be made. Balancing test Whilst accountability, transparency and public debate is important, public safety is of paramount importance and any disclosure which has the potential to jeopardise the wellbeing of an individual will not be made. It is therefore our opinion that the balance lies in favour of non-disclosure of the information. A REVIEW OF THE POLICING OF THE COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE 1984-85 WEST YORKSHIRE METROPOLITAN POLICE ,cl l A Review of the Policing of the Coal Industry Dispute 1984/85 J 7 FOREWORD The strike in the mining industry which ended on 4 March 1985, gave rise to what was undoubtedly the largest police operation which this County has seen. Many people inside and out of the industry have expressed their views of that operation, their perception of it being coloured by their particular stance in relation to the issues involved. West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police sought to adopt a philosophy which was not about winning battles, but was concerned with "winning the peace" and upholding the law. Our aim was to police the mining communities of West Yorkshire with sensitivity and impartiality. There was an acute awareness that the majority of miners, like all decent law-abiding citizens, were keen to act within the framework of the law. Our objective, therefore, was to employ a combination of reasonable firmness and maximum tolerance with a view to maintaining stability. In pursuit of this traditional policing role we developed a strategy of flexible arrangements combining a "relative response". Great emphasis was placed upon identifying the nature of each situation and dealing with it in the most appropriate manner. As a result, the number of officers deployed to any particular location was the m1n1mum consistent with the safety of all parties. We were intent throughout upon maintaining the traditional role of the police. Officers were deployed wherever possible in normal police uniform. In recognition of the fact that the wearing of protective equipment was alien to our policing philosophy, it was used only in response to violent action and as a last resort. The reversion to ordinary uniform on those rare occasions when protective equipment had been worn followed swiftly to help to normalise relationships. Attempts were made to restrict the police input to officers from this Force, because they understood the West Yorkshire ethos. They were regularly reminded at briefings about their responsibilities and of the need to act with propriety to facilitate a return to harmonious relationships with all concerned at the end of the strike. _J When it became necessary, due to the escalation of violence, to draw in officers from other forces in support of those from West Yorkshire, great efforts were made to secure their complete integration. They were accommodated on police premises in the Force area, regularly briefed as to the philosophy prevailing in West Yorkshire, and commanded by senior officers from this Force. By these means we encouraged them to recognise for themselves the sensitive nature of the operation and come to terms with the West Yorkshire approach. Officers involved in the operation at all levels were encouraged to promote dialogue between the parties involved in the dispute. My regular consultation with the Police Authority through the medium of the Special Sob-Committee proved extremely useful in this respect. This openness led to an even-handed approach towards resolving problems and did much to smooth the transition towards normality. When the dispute ended I was confident the amalgamation of these initiatives would enable us to pick up the tradition of normal community policing in this Force area, with little or no loss of the excellent police/public relationship we have so carefully fostered.