PSNI Spend on Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS)

Request Number: FOI/16232

Category: Operational policing, Investigations and Events - Investigations and Operations

Subject: PSNI Spend on Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS)

Request and Answer: 
In relation to request number FOI/16232 Police Service of Northern Ireland is providing an NCND response and will explain this further in the response below.

Request 1
The PSNIs spend on CHIS (Covert Human Intelligence Sources) (aka sources, touts, informants) during 2024/25.

Request 2
Please provide comparison figures for the previous four years.

Request 3
Please state the highest amount paid to a CHIS in each year.

Answers 1-3
Whilst we are providing a table for total payment to CHIS for the last 4 years, broken down by financial year, PSNI is withholding the highest amount paid to a CHIS. The rationale for this is explained below.

Section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 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:

1. states that fact,
2. specifies the exemption in question and
3. 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 30(2)(b) – It relates to the obtaining of information from confidential sources.

Section 38(1) Health and Safety - Information is exempt information if its disclosure under the FOIA would, or would be likely to (a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual.

Section 40(2)(a)(b) by virtue of Section 40(3)(a)(i) – Personal Information.

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

Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption which means there is no requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in releasing the requested information, however, the public interest must be considered to ensure that withholding the information is the appropriate response.

Section 38 is a prejudiced based exemption which means that it is necessary to show the harm that may be caused by release and consideration must be given as to whether there is a public interest in disclosure.

Section 40 (2) of the FOIA is an absolute exemption which means there is no requirement on PSNI to consider whether there is a public interest in disclosure, PSNI must however consider if information can be released into the public domain. Section 40 is an interface exemption which means we must consider whether release of the information would breach the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) or the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). To ensure that persons cannot be identified, it has been decided to withhold the information which is the ‘personal data’ of those individuals as defined under Data Protection legislation.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, PSNI must consider if information can be released into the public domain. I have therefore considered whether the disclosure of this personal data is subject to the exemption at Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by virtue of S40 (3)(A)(a). As this information is ‘personal data’, PSNI considered whether disclosure would contravene any of the six data protection principles contained within the GDPR.

The six data protection principles are good information handling standards which PSNI must comply with in relation to how it handles personal information, including deciding whether to disclose it or not. In particular, the first principle requires personal data to be processed in a ‘lawful and fair’ manner. In considering whether it is ‘fair’ to any individual to release information about them, PSNI considered the likely expectations of those individuals and the nature of the information involved. Individuals must have confidence that their information is treated sensitively and appropriately by PSNI. We consider those individuals would not have any reasonable expectation that PSNI would disclose such information of this nature about them into the public domain. We further consider it would be extremely unfair to those individuals and therefore a breach of the first principle of data protection legislation. This information is therefore exempt under section 40 (2) of the FOIA as it contravenes data protection legislation to release it, and PSNI has made the decision to withhold that information.

Harm - Section 38
CHIS (regardless of their motivation) provide information at particular personal risk to themselves and their families. As previous cases have shown, where a CHIS is identified it can result in substantial physical harm, or mental trauma resulting from the threat of physical harm. This problem is particularly acute in cases relating to serious crime and terrorism where the threat against individuals is substantial.

The health and safety of any individual is a matter of concern to the PSNI. Release of any information that could place an informant at risk of identification will not be provided by the PSNI. 

Public Interest Test – Section 38

Section 38 - Factors Favouring Release
Release of the information would promote openness and transparency of records held by the PSNI.

Section 38 - Factors Favouring  Retention 
The release of any information could lead to identification of any individual and consequently endanger the safety of an individual.

Public Interest Test - Section 30

Section 30 - Factors Favouring Release
There is information within the public domain confirming that police use CHIS to assist them with investigations and the effective delivery of law enforcement. Disclosure of the information requested would enhance the public’s knowledge about how information relating to informants is used by PSNI and how the intelligence received assists in day to day investigations and operations to assist the prevention and detection of crime; the apprehension and prosecution of offenders and the administration of justice. Disclosure would also assist in stopping any incorrect rumours or falsehoods relating to how the police store and manage how informants assist the police.

Section 30 - Factors Against Release
Disclosure of the information requested could identify informant activity within Northern Ireland. Over a period of time if several disclosures were made, individuals could analyse the information and identify any sudden peaks or troughs in informant activity. This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and also prejudice our ability to maintain confidential sources. Consequently, the force’s future law enforcement capabilities would be affected. 

Decision
There is information within the public domain confirming that police use CHIS to assist them with investigations and the effective delivery of law enforcement. The Police Service is tasked with protecting the community we serve and solving crime and there is a public interest argument in ensuring we are open and transparent with regard to policing investigations and operations. There is no doubt that for the issues outlined above any disclosure relating to sensitive informant information would jeopardise those important roles.

As has been mentioned informants play a vital role in assisting the police, and is based very much on relationships built on trust and the expectation of complete confidentiality.

The PSNI considers the balance of the public interest favours retention of this information. The PSNI will not release any information if to do so could endanger the safety of an individual.

The release of information under the FOIA is a release into the public domain and not just to the individual making the request. Once information is disclosed under 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.

The public interest, in this instance, is therefore best served by not releasing the information to which you seek access. It is therefore our opinion that the balance lies in favour of non-disclosure of the requested information.

The table under outlines the PSNI’s payment on Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) for the last 4 financial years.