FOI request (FOIR-157069319)

CCTV Cameras

Requested Fri 15 November 2019
Responded  Thu 19 December 2019

Response

Does the council use any CCTV cameras produced by Hikvision?

Answer - Yes.

Does the council use any other hardware produced by Hikvision?

Answer - No.

Does the council use any equipment produced by Pyronix?

Answer - No.

If any hardware from either Hikvision or Pyronix is used, could you please tell me when they were installed?

Answer - 2016

If any hardware from either Hikvision or Pyronix is used, could you please tell me how many units are in use?

Answer - 34 Static Cameras 9 PTZ cameras

If any hardware from either Hikvision or Pyronix is used, could you please tell me where the cameras are located?

NOTICE OF REFUSAL

Please note that I consider the information you have requested regarding the location of CCTV cameras to be exempt information under S31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act in that disclosure of that information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

The exemption afforded by S31(1)(a) is subject to what is known as the 'public interest test'. When applying the test in a particular case a public authority is deciding whether the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than by disclosure.

Although the Freedom of Information Act does not define 'in the public interest', there is a presumption under Freedom of Information that openness is in the public interest. In applying the public interest test a public authority will take into account the distinction that has been often made by courts between things that are in the public interest, and things that merely interest the public. Where applicants have not identified public interest considerations succinctly or accurately, the public authority has a responsibility under the Act to make their own assessment of the public interest considerations in the particular case.

We have identified the following public interest factors that may be seen as encouraging the disclosure of information:

a) furtherance of understanding and participation in the public debate of issues of the day.

b) promotion of accountability and transparency by public authorities in the decision they make and the spending of public money.

We consider these factors to be generally of limited or no relevance in relation to the information in question.

We believe that there is no evidence that disclosure would bring any significant proportion of empty buildings back into use. In this respect we would point out that we consider that any disclosure would take no account of the reasons such properties are empty.

Public interest factors seen as encouraging non-disclosure are, generally, the exemptions themselves. In consideration of this matter we came to the following conclusions:

a) that there is no evidence of a wider public (rather than individual) interest in disclosure.

b) that the disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

c) that the nature of such prejudice is real and substantial and that there is a real and significant risk of such prejudice.

d) that the motives behind the request (albeit not provided to us) have no relevance since disclosure would mean the information would be in the public domain.

In weighing the factors for and against disclosure we have concluded that the likely benefit to the applicant and the wider public of disclosure is outweighed by the likely prejudice caused by such disclosure and that therefore the public interest is better served by non-disclosure

If any hardware from either Hikvision or Pyronix is used, could you please describe the type of cameras in use (facial recognition, standard CCTV, ANPR)?

Answer - Standard CCTV only, no ANPR or facial recognition