BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Information Commissioner's Office |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Essex Police (Police and criminal justice ) [2005] UKICO FS50068601 (3 August 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2005/FS50068601.html Cite as: [2005] UKICO FS50068601 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
3 August 2005, Police and criminal justice
The complainant asked Essex Police via the Office of Essex Safety Camera Partnership to provide him with the identity of the 20 fixed camera locations in Essex that catch the most drivers speeding, how many drivers per month or year are caught at each of these locations, and how much money was raised from each location per month or year. Essex Constabulary refused to provide the information citing s.31 (Law Enforcement) and s.38 (Likely to endanger the Health and Safety of any Individual). Whilst the Commissioner recognises the value of improving public awareness and the opportunity disclosure would bring to further the debate on the effectiveness and purpose of speed cameras, he was not persuaded that the public interest in furthering this debate would outweigh the public interest in maintaining both of these exemptions. There is in his opinion a stronger public interest in avoiding both an increase in non compliance with road traffic laws and the likely increased risk to the health and safety of the public. The Commissioner was also persuaded that if the perception of the risk of being caught by speed cameras was reduced this may force Essex Constabulary to consider more widespread installation of speed cameras incurring additional public expenditure.
FOI 31: Not upheld
