A RETIRED policeman from Galashiels has failed in his bid to discover details of police deployment and staffing levels in the Borders.

Amid concerns that local cover may have diminished since the advent of a centralised, cost-cutting Police Scotland force in April last year, Harry Scott, who retired in 1999 after 30 years’ service, invoked the Freedom of Information Scotland Act (FOISA) in his attempt to get to the truth.

The single force, absorbing the Lothian and Borders constabulary which had existed since 1975, had been operating for a year when Mr Scott formally asked Police Scotland for the number and rank of officers employed in the Borders (the former G division) on 14 shifts over a specified seven-week period.

Mr Scott wanted to know the number of uniformed response officers based at stations within the region, along with community beat officers and road policing officers if they were working in the area during that period. He got his reply in early May when Police Scotland told him the disclosure of the requested information “would, or would be likely to prejudice substantially the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders”.

As such, the force claimed the information was exempt under the FOI legislation and should be withheld.

Mr Scott sought a review of that decision as he could not understand how disclosing historical statistics, which had been revealed in the past by Lothian and Borders Police, could cause 'substantial prejudice’. He believed there was a public interest in disclosure.

In June, Police Scotland maintained its position of non-disclosure, although Mr Scott was informed there were “approximately 150 officers” stationed in the Scottish Borders area.

At the end of July, a dissatisfied Mr Scott took his case to the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) Rosemary Agnew and a three month probe, led by SIC head of enforcement Marion Keyse, was launched.

And that watchdog has now concluded that Police Scotland was justified in withholding the requested information.

In her just-published determination, Ms Keyse recounted how the force believed that, if detailed deployment figures were published, “it would allow those intent on committing crime to draw police officers away from duties in other divisional areas”.

“Police Scotland submitted that the disclosure…would allow anyone intent on committing crime to plan how best to engage or occupy these core policing resources, to maximise the chance of evading detection and avoiding apprehension when committing offences,” stated the Scottish Information Commissioner’s report.

“While the figures requested were historical, Police Scotland believed the relative consistency from day to day [deployment] made the information an accurate indicator of actual ongoing and future planned deployment. To that extent, the information remained current and could be used to negative effect.” Ms Keyse acknowledged Mr Scott’s claims that the police arguments were based on supposition and had no credible evidence base.

“He considers their arguments hypothetical, suggesting people intent on committing criminal acts would attempt to do so irrespective of how many resources were deployed in any given area or in what manner.

“Mr Scott submitted that the people of the Scottish Borders had a right to know what level of service was being provided by Police Scotland and that any assertion of an adequate service should be supported by evidence.” But in upholding the Police Scotland position, Ms Keyse concluded: “Without going into further detail of all the submissions made by Police Scotland [as to do so could cause the substantial prejudice claimed], the Commissioner is satisfied that disclosure would assist those of criminal intent…” Mr Scott this week declined to comment on the Commissioner’s decision. But Bill Chisholm, the retired Jedburgh journalist who earlier this year unsuccessfully petitioned the Scottish Parliament for FOI legislation to be beefed up in favour of requesters, said: “Freedom of Information legislation was introduced 10 years ago supposedly to make public bodies in Scotland more accountable to the public through greater transparency.

“But here we have a classic example of the Scottish Information Commissioner protecting a public body by denying access to statistics on police numbers which should be readily available.

“To my mind, the SIC ruling in Mr Scott’s case lacks credibility and begs the question: has the information been withheld to cover up the real extent of cuts in police numbers in the Borders?”