What nationality data does West Midlands Police hold on sexual offences?
Status: Open investigation — no numerical conclusion; FOI response due 21 August 2026
Restore Britain Coventry asked West Midlands Police what nationality information it holds in sexual-offence records from 1 April 2022 onwards, including a Coventry breakdown where available. The force says nationality is not mandatory and has delayed its response. Until completeness and definitions are known, no comparison is responsible.
The Coventry impact
Victims of sexual offences need a police response focused on safety, evidence and justice. Public arguments about patterns of offending must never turn their experiences into a slogan or treat a suspect as convicted. Reliable data matters because rumour and selective cases do not protect anyone.
What we found
West Midlands Police received FOI request 1365/26 on 12 June 2026. After clarification, the agreed scope covered records from 1 April 2022 onwards, with Coventry figures where available.
The request asks for sexual-offence information by recorded nationality, including rape and attempted rape, offences against children, group-based offending where recorded, commonly recorded non-UK nationalities and equivalent categories for recorded UK nationals.
The force warned that nationality is not a mandatory field in its crime-recording system and is not routinely completed by officers.
It later delayed the response while conducting a public-interest test connected with section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects certain information held for investigations and proceedings. The force stated that it expected to respond by 21 August 2026.
No figures from 1365/26 have been supplied. The current evidence supports no conclusion about nationality and sexual offending in Coventry or across the West Midlands.
A separate 2025 West Midlands Police disclosure illustrates why definitions matter. FOI 1853A/25 reported force-wide sexual offences by “ethnic appearance”, not nationality, and included large “not recorded” and “unknown” categories. That disclosure cannot answer the current request and must not be relabelled as nationality data.
Why it matters
When a public body cannot say how complete a sensitive field is, competing claims cannot be tested properly. The result is an information vacuum filled by national estimates, individual cases and suspicion.
The determination here is to follow the evidence wherever it leads. If a reliable pattern exists, authorities need to be able to see and address it. If the data disproves a repeated claim, we will report that. If missingness makes a comparison unsafe, that failure must be stated plainly rather than disguised with a confident chart.
What the evidence does and does not show
Nationality does not explain offending by itself. A recorded nationality may be self-reported, evidenced or copied from another system. A blank field may mean unknown, not asked or simply not entered.
Suspects, arrests, charges, prosecutions and convictions are different stages. A suspect record is not proof of guilt. Raw totals cannot become offending rates without a suitable population denominator, consistent definitions and an account of missing data.
Small numbers may also need suppression to protect victims and prevent identification. Those safeguards are compatible with honest aggregate reporting.
The unanswered questions
The police response must first show the number and percentage of relevant records in which nationality is completed, unknown, not stated or absent. Without that, the reliability of every later table is unknowable.
The response also needs to define UK and non-UK categories, say how nationality was established, identify any recording changes and separate each criminal-justice stage.
If Coventry-level data is supplied, the force must explain whether the geography relates to offence location, suspect address or another field. Any comparison must use equivalent offence categories for recorded UK and non-UK nationals and state the denominator and period.
Our verdict
This is an open evidence request, not a finding about any nationality. West Midlands Police is entitled to protect live investigations and personal information, but the remaining public question is what aggregate data is held and whether it is complete enough to use. Difficult subjects demand higher standards, not lower ones. The responsible position today is simple: no figures, no numerical claim and no collective blame.
What we are doing about it
FOI 1365/26 was submitted on 12 June 2026 and clarified to a scope beginning 1 April 2022. We are tracking the force’s stated response date of 21 August 2026.
When the response arrives, we will assess completeness before calculating or publishing any comparison. Tables will separate justice stages and missing-data categories. If the Coventry sample is too incomplete or small, we will say so and publish only the recording finding.
Evidence and status
Status: Open investigation; no numerical conclusion supported.
Last updated: 6 August 2026.
Primary sources: West Midlands Police FOI 1365/26 correspondence held by the branch; West Midlands Police FOI 1853A/25; West Midlands Police request-information page.
FOI reference: 1365/26, received 12 June 2026.
Next expected evidence: West Midlands Police response stated for 21 August 2026.