Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of whether Cleveland Police conducted any surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 during Operation Sacristy in such a way as to have potentially compromised that investigation.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
Operation Sacristy was an investigation that was conducted independently of the Home Office involving a number of organisations and agencies, including the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). As such we cannot provide specific detail on this operation.
The Office of Surveillance Commissioners oversee the use of surveillance powers by public authorities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the anti-corruption strategies that Cleveland Police had in place in accordance with the ACPO police integrity model prior to Operation Sacristy.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
Operation Sacristy was an investigation that was conducted independently of the Home Office involving a number of organisations and agencies, including the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). As such we cannot provide specific detail on this operation or its terms of reference.
In 2014 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) reported on the extent to which Cleveland Police Force had put in place arrangements to ensure its workforce acts with integrity as part of its Police Integrity and Corruption Programme available at:
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/cleveland-crime-and-integrity.pdf
HMIC produced further findings as part of its 2016 Legitimacy programme, which included an assessment of how well the force ensures that its workforce behaves ethically and lawfully. The 2016 Cleveland report is available: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/peel-police-legitimacy-2016-cleveland.pdf
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of Operation Sacristy in (a) identifying instances of corruption in Cleveland Police and (b) preventing future such corruption.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
Operation Sacristy was an investigation that was conducted independently of the Home Office involving a number of organisations and agencies, including the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). As such we cannot provide specific detail on this operation or its terms of reference.
In 2014 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) reported on the extent to which Cleveland Police Force had put in place arrangements to ensure its workforce acts with integrity as part of its Police Integrity and Corruption Programme available at:
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/cleveland-crime-and-integrity.pdf
HMIC produced further findings as part of its 2016 Legitimacy programme, which included an assessment of how well the force ensures that its workforce behaves ethically and lawfully. The 2016 Cleveland report is available: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/peel-police-legitimacy-2016-cleveland.pdf
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions have taken place between HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police on the terms of reference for Operation Sacristy; and what representations she has received on potential concerns raised by the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police on those terms of reference during those negotiations.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
Operation Sacristy was an investigation that was conducted independently of the Home Office involving a number of organisations and agencies, including the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). As such we cannot provide specific detail on this operation or its terms of reference.
In 2014 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) reported on the extent to which Cleveland Police Force had put in place arrangements to ensure its workforce acts with integrity as part of its Police Integrity and Corruption Programme available at:
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/cleveland-crime-and-integrity.pdf
HMIC produced further findings as part of its 2016 Legitimacy programme, which included an assessment of how well the force ensures that its workforce behaves ethically and lawfully. The 2016 Cleveland report is available: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/peel-police-legitimacy-2016-cleveland.pdf
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she has taken to ensure that (a) evidence was not destroyed and (b) witnesses were not intimidated by members of Cleveland Police during Operation Sacristy.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
We do not comment on operational decisions by forces investigating crime and therefore cannot provide specific detail on this operation. The management of witnesses during any investigation by a law enforcement agency should be compliant with the Victims Code (2015) and Witness Charter (2013), this ensures a minimum level of service to all victims and witnesses.
Where intimidation is identified, measures can be taken in accordance with the Victims’ Code and Witness Charter to mitigate risk. Where the risk to a victim or witness is deemed serious and ongoing, management may be provided by the UK Protected Persons Service (UKPPS). The UKPPS can neither confirm nor deny individuals as protected persons to preserve their anonymity and safety.
Operational decisions in relation to the retention of evidence by law enforcement agencies is governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps her Department took to protect witnesses during the Operation Sacristy investigation into corruption allegations at Cleveland Police Authority.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
We do not comment on operational decisions by forces investigating crime and therefore cannot provide specific detail on this operation. The management of witnesses during any investigation by a law enforcement agency should be compliant with the Victims Code (2015) and Witness Charter (2013), this ensures a minimum level of service to all victims and witnesses.
Where intimidation is identified, measures can be taken in accordance with the Victims’ Code and Witness Charter to mitigate risk. Where the risk to a victim or witness is deemed serious and ongoing, management may be provided by the UK Protected Persons Service (UKPPS). The UKPPS can neither confirm nor deny individuals as protected persons to preserve their anonymity and safety.
Operational decisions in relation to the retention of evidence by law enforcement agencies is governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what criteria are used to determine whether an applicant is likely to leave the UK by the end-date of a family visitor visa.
Answered by Robert Goodwill
Applications for a visa to travel to the UK to visit family are considered on their merits, in accordance with the requirements set out in Appendix V to the Immigration Rules, taking into account the information and supporting documents provided in the application.
It is for the applicant to satisfy the decision maker that they meet those requirements, including that they are a genuine visitor. A genuine visitor is a person who will leave the UK at the end of the visit, will not live in the UK for extended periods or make the UK their main home, has sufficient funds for their support during the visit and who intends to undertake permitted visit activities and not prohibited activities. The assessment of the genuineness of a visitor relates to the particular factors of the individual application, but may include the applicant’s personal and economic ties to their country of residence.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many family visitor visas have been refused in each year since 2010 on account of reasonable doubt that the applicant for such a visa will leave the UK at the end of the visa period.
Answered by Robert Goodwill
I am sorry but the Home Office does not hold the specific information in the format you have requested.
In order to determine the number of refusals for the reasons you have stated, the department would have to interrogate individual case records, at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many police cautions have been issued for offences under (a) section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and (b) section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
Information going back to 2005 on police cautions for these offences has been published here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2015
Data stretching further back is held by the Ministry of Justice, which is the department responsible for police caution figures.
Asked by: Anna Turley (Labour (Co-op) - Redcar)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many meetings Ministers of her Department have had with social media companies to discuss harmful online content since May 2015.
Answered by Sarah Newton
Home Office Ministers routinely meet with a range of stakeholders, including social media companies, to discuss action to protect people from harmful online content. Ministers also meet social media companies on specific issues such as online hate crime and extremism.
In addition, they attend meetings of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS), which brings together industry, law enforcement, academia, charities, parenting groups and government departments and meets on a regular basis.