Police surveillance at anti-fracking protests in Balcombe, West Sussex, 2015. Photo: DrillOrDrp
A tribunal has ruled today that police cannot use “national security” as a reason for refusing to release information about fracking opponents referred to a counter-terrorism programme.
The policing monitoring group, Netpol, went to the Information Rights Tribunal last month in an appeal over requests for information about Channel, part of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy.
Netpol had asked whether anti-fracking campaigners had been referred to the voluntary programme, which is aimed at people identified as “vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism”.
The Information Commissioner had backed the decision of five police forces in the north-west to reject the request.
In 2016, she said releasing this information “would disclose that Prevent officers were targeting anti-fracking events for extremist activities” and provide “useful intelligence to anyone wishing to circumvent counter-terrorism arrangements surrounding fracking”.
But in today’s ruling, the tribunal panel rejected arguments from the police and the Information Commissioner. The five police forces must now respond to the requests without relying on the national security exemption in the Freedom of Information Act.
The panel said:
“Having regard to what is already in the public domain, and having regard also to the existence of the concerns about appropriate use of Channel referrals, we judge that answers concerning whether the requested numbers are held would make a small but worthwhile contribution to public understanding, and hence towards the effectiveness of the programme.”
The panel said revealing whether the police hold this kind of information would “indicate a level of concern or watchfulness concerning anti-fracking campaigning as a movement”. But it said:
“This would not of itself reveal anything new that is not already in the public domain.”
“Stretching credulity”
The panel added:
“In our judgment it is stretching credulity to contend that such confirmation would be of material assistance to terrorists or potential terrorists”.
It accepted there was a public interest in transparency about the way the Channel programme operated. It could only work if it had “widespread public understanding and support”, the panel concluded.
Netpol said this evening:
“Netpol’s victory is important because the police and the Home Office have both repeatedly insisted, despite growing evidence, that there is no proof the anti-fracking movement has ever been targeted for surveillance by Prevent counter-terrorism officers.
“Now that the Tribunal has instructed all five forces to go back and look at our freedom of information requests again, the police can no longer simply fall back on a standard “neither confirm nor deny” response to avoid saying whether opponents of fracking were ever considered vulnerable to the influence of so-called “extremists”.
“This over-reliance by the police on ‘national security’ to block greater transparency is a long-standing concern for many campaigners alarmed about the scale of intrusive surveillance on political dissent. It has been an excuse used again and again by the police during the ongoing public inquiry into undercover policing, even when the names of disgraced former officers have been widely reported.
“We hope that as a result of losing this case, the Information Commissioner will finally adopt a more positive stance on ensuring the public are not shut out completely from the debate about the effectiveness (or otherwise) of counter-terrorism and policing policy.”
Categories: policing
DRILL OR DROP? 
maybe l should now request a FOI to find out why the police held my DBS for 9 weeks when l don’t even have a caution on my record
This could be a bit embarrassing .
Congratulations Netpol, for bringing this to the Information Rights Tribunal to bringing out the police surveillance procedure from behind the smoke screen of the Channel and Prevent Counter Terrorism measures into the light of the Freedom of Information Act.
We will see what measures have been taken to Infiltrate and surveillance and monitor peaceful protest.
And whether provocation and incitement has been a factor or not.
Lol. Anti-terrorism squad looking into peaceful demonstrators and they say they don’t have enough resources. Cut back monitoring us then they have the budget.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/why-britain-can-never-rely-on-wind-power/
Onshore wind. The people want it and it’s cheap.
https://www.benjerry.co.uk/values/issues-we-care-about/climate-justice
Get your half price ice cream. Caramel blew blew looks yummy.
All those people finding out about how this Government is going against the will of the people and costing us all money.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/12/ben-jerrys-joins-the-campaign-to-support-onshore-windfarms
What is the point in spending £Millions on onshore wind when for the past few weeks there has been little or no wind requiring gas, nuclear and coal to supply our energy.
Intermittent renewables will ALWAYS require gas/nuclear back up in place at extra cost for weeks like we have just experienced…
Sorry the article linked is by
Andrew Montford is deputy director of the Global Warming Policy Forum.
An excellent result from Netpol.
Desperate times for an isolated industry running on fumes.
Solar making huge gains in last few months
At 3 times the cost of electricity in the uk
A report issued last year by a coalition of environmental organisations found the UK provided $972m (£695m) of annual financing for fossil fuels on average between 2013 and 2015, compared with $172m for renewable energy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/national-grid-electricity-coal-free-renewable-energy-fossil-fuel-a8320421.html
For those who are behind with proven current clean energy solutions let Kryten and Tesla enlighten you
Hi Kish .. Some food for thought here
“Ranked 24th out of 28, the UK is far behind other European Union economies when it comes to the consumption and production of renewable energy. It is clear that the priorities of the UK government have shifted away from importance of carbon-free energy sources somewhat. ” https://www.power-technology.com/comment/uk-lags-behind-rest-eu-renewable-energy-consumption/
Let Tesla explain why the USA are behind with their thinking
https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-usa
Flow batteries – there are various types – are likely to overtake Lithium-ion, for domestic and utility scale storage in the next few years I reckon John. Lithium and cobalt demands will naturally drop off. Energy density will keep Li batts in pole position for cars for a while but coupled to super capacitors I suspect. A French startup has suddenly become a big hitter in the SuperCap/UltraCap field: https://newatlas.com/nawa-technologies-carbon-ultra-capacitor/54972/ … and … http://www.nawatechnologies.com/en/nawa-technologies-revolutionizes-energy-storage-with-new-ultra-fast-carbon-battery/
meanwhile in Australia (with global reach – a novel setup using flow batts – and scalable): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OHstY_kKUY
Well done Netpol . however it should go further & challenge the police control. over body-cam evidence as to have the police in control of such evidence defeats the purpose of it in the first place.
After all the exposure the BBC gave racist ‘freedom of speech ‘ riots, it would be nice to see a brief mention of the draconian government surveillance measures in PREVENT… but strangely there is none.