Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
FOI Request Reference: 801/26
Thank you for your request for information, received 31/3/2026
Request
Relating to Misconduct Hearing outcomes specifically Hearings including accelerated since the start of the 'Police Misconduct Regulations 2020'.
The Data that I seek is focused on the ethnicity of those Police Officers (not staff) who have received the following.
I am only seeking ethnicity data, nothing else. I need to know the make-up of those officers sanctioned and if ethnicity had a bearing on this.
Response
We can confirm that some relevant information is held by West Midlands Police. However, while most of the information is included in this email. I am not required to release all of the information requested.
|
Ethnic Appearance |
Count Of Outcome |
|
White |
151 |
|
Dismissal |
28 |
|
Dismissal Without Notice |
Less than 5 |
|
Final Written Warning |
19 |
|
No Action |
6 |
|
Not Proven |
9 |
|
Reduction in Rank |
5 |
|
Reflective Practise/Management Advice |
7 |
|
Would Have Been Dismissed |
71 |
|
Written Warning |
Less than 5 |
|
Asian |
33 |
|
Dismissal |
Less than 5 |
|
Final Written Warning |
Less than 5 |
|
No Action |
Less than 5 |
|
Not Proven |
Less than 5 |
|
Reflective Practise/Management Advice |
Less than 5 |
|
Would Have Been Dismissed |
19 |
|
Written Warning |
Less than 5 |
|
Other |
7 |
|
Dismissal |
Less than 5 |
|
Final Written Warning |
Less than 5 |
|
No Action |
Less than 5 |
|
Would Have Been Dismissed |
Less than 5 |
|
Black |
Less than 5 |
|
Dismissal Without Notice |
Less than 5 |
|
Would Have Been Dismissed |
Less than 5 |
|
Unknown |
Less than 5 |
|
Not Proven |
Less than 5 |
|
Would Have Been Dismissed |
Less than 5 |
|
Grand Total |
196 |
Reasons for decision
The withheld information is exempt by virtue of the following exemptions
Section 40 (2) personal data
Section 40(2) is an absolute and class-based exemption if to release the information exists would breach the third party’s data protection rights. In this case to release this personal information would not constitute fair processing of the data. As this exemption is class-based I am not required to identify the harm in disclosure and in this instance, I believe that the right to privacy outweighs any public interest in release.
Any data less than 5, is exempt from release as the identification of an individual from that information would be likely.
Any further details regarding these incidents are exempt by the following:
Section 40 (2) – Personal information