January 27, 2026 | Operational Policing, Investigations and Events , Strategic Partnerships and Community Schemes
Request Number: FOI/16540
Category: Operational policing, Investigations and Events - Strategic Partnerships and Community Schemes
Subject: Meetings with Chinese Consul-General in Belfast
Request and Answer:
In relation to request number FOI/16540, The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) is providing an NCND response and we will explain this further in the response below.
Question 1
On 2nd October 2024, the Chinese Consul-General in Belfast, visited Chief Superintendent [Name provided] and Temporary Superintendent [Name provided] at Musgrave Police Station. Please clarify the purpose of the meeting and issues discussed, and provide minutes from the meeting.
Question 2
On 14th January 2025, the Chinese Consul-General in Belfast, met with Deputy Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Please clarify the purpose of the meeting and issues discussed, and provide minutes from the meeting.
Answers
Section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) requires the Police Service of Northern Ireland, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
- states that fact,
- specifies the exemption in question and
- states (if not otherwise apparent) why the exemption applies.
The exemptions, as well as the factors the Department considered when deciding where the public interest lies, are listed below:
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement - The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1) (a) would or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
Section 40(5B) Personal Information - The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if to do so would contravene any of the data protection principles.
The full text of exemptions can be found at www.legislation.gov.uk and further guidance on how they operate can be located on the Information Commissioners Office website www.ico.org.uk.
‘Neither Confirm nor Deny’ (NCND)
Section 1(1) (a) of the FOIA requires a public authority to inform a requester whether it holds information specified in the request. This is known as the ‘duty to confirm or deny’. In most cases, a public authority will be able to comply with its duty to confirm or deny under Section 1(1)(a) – in other words, it will be able to respond to a request by at least informing the requester whether or not it holds the information. In most cases where information is held, a public authority will go on to consider whether information should be provided under Section 1(1)(b) or whether it is subject to an exemption in Part II of the FOIA. However there may be occasions when complying with the duty to confirm or deny under Section 1(1)(a) would in itself disclose sensitive or potentially damaging information that falls under an exemption. In these circumstances, the FOIA allows a public authority to respond by refusing to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. This is called a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response.
The decision to issue a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response is not affected by whether we do or do not hold the information but relates to the consequences of confirming or denying the information is held. The starting point and main focus in most cases will be theoretical considerations about the consequences of confirming or denying that a particular type of information is held. The decision to neither confirm nor deny is separate from a decision not to disclose information and needs to be taken entirely on its own merits.
PSNI follow the Information Commissioner’s Guidance in relation to ‘NCND’ and you may find it helpful to refer to this at the following link:
PSNI consider the following NCND provisions apply for the reasons outlined below.
Harm for Section 31
Disclosure under the FOIA are disclosures to the world and not just to the requestor. To confirm or deny that PSNI hold any information relating to law-enforcement liaison activity, which could be sensitive could harm PSNI’s operational functions.
Exemptions Explained
Section 31 is a prejudice based and qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not whether information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.
Public Interest Test
Section 31(3) – Law enforcement
Factors Favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 31(3)
Confirming or denying whether any information is held would provide an insight into the police service. This would enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police. Confirmation or denial may also improve public understanding of how the police operate.
Factors Against Confirming or Denying for Section 31(3)
By confirming or denying whether information is held could compromise law-enforcement liaison activity which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and impact on police resources. It could assist individuals seeking to exploit or evade police methods. Confirmation or denial could prejudice ongoing or potential investigations and harm PSNI's ability to prevent and detect crime.
Balancing Test
To confirm or deny that information is held would in itself be a release of information into the public domain which may interfere with the effective conduct of investigations or proceedings.
The PSNI is charged with enforcing the law, preventing, detecting crime and protecting the community we serve. There is a public interest in the transparency of policing and providing assurance that the police service is acting appropriately and effectively. As part of that policing purpose, information is gathered which can be highly sensitive relating to investigative activity. The PSNI has a duty to safeguard matters that could undermine the integrity of any investigation.
In addition anything that places that confidence at risk, no matter how generic, would undermine any trust or confidence individuals have in the Police Service. The Public entrust the Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety and protection and the only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with what is placed into the public domain. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that any information is held. However, this should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you requested exists or does not exist.
Section 40 is a class based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to evidence the harm or consider the public interest test.
Section 40(5)(B) - Personal Information
(5B) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent that any of the following applies -
Information disclosed under the FOI Act is disclosed into the public domain, effectively to the world and not just to one individual. To confirm or deny whether personal information exists in response to your request could release publicly, personal information about identifiable individuals, including movements or private engagements which would be unfair under Data Protection principles, thereby breaching the right to protection of their personal information afforded to them under the Data Protection Act 2018. When confirming or denying that information is held would breach an individual’s rights under the Data Protection Act legislation, Section 40(5) becomes an absolute exemption, and there is no requirement to provide evidence of a prejudice occurring, or to conduct a public interest test. To confirm or deny that the PSNI hold or do not hold information would in fact confirm information about an individual including the fact it may or may not be held. This would amount to a release into the public domain of personal information about an individual. The individual would have no expectation that these details would be released into the public domain, therefore their data protection rights would be breached by release. Individuals may try to use the FOI legislation to circumvent the law and may try to obtain information which they are not entitled to or to try and find out whether the police hold any information about them or others. To ensure this does not occur, police services use a ‘neither confirm nor deny approach’ and this has to be used consistently to ensure that we can protect this method of response and do not and undermine the rationale for adopting the NCND response in the first place.
The release of information under Freedom of Information (FOI) is a release into the public domain and not just to the individual requesting the information. Once information is disclosed by FOI there is no control or limits as to who or how the information is shared with other individuals, therefore a release under FOI is considered a disclosure to the world in general.
However, this should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you requested exists or does not exist.