Complaint To IOPC Re Cheshire Officers' Refusal of FOIA Request 120525
Uploaded by
PoliceCorruptionComplaint To IOPC Re Cheshire Officers' Refusal of FOIA Request 120525
Uploaded by
PoliceCorruptionSubject: Conduct Complaint – Cheshire Constabulary:
Emma Krzyzaniak and others
To: Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
From: Neil Wilby
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am a journalist and bona fide newsgatherer recognised by the National
Police Chiefs Council (see attached credentials)and submit this complaint
under the Police Reform Act 2002 regarding the professional conduct of
officers within Cheshire Constabulary, specifically in relation to their
handling of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on 7th
April 2025 and refused on 8th May 2025.
The subject of the request was a presentation delivered at a national
policing communications event in March 2024, titled ‘The Lucy Letby Case
(Operation Hummingbird)’, prepared and delivered by a senior figure in
Cheshire’s communications team, Shelley Smith.
This material was delivered during a period in which the force was under
extraordinary national scrutiny, with a public inquiry underway and
increasing concerns being raised about the safety of the underlying
criminal convictions.
Nature of Complaint
This complaint is not about whether Section 14(1) of the FOIA was
properly applied, nor does it seek to pre-empt the force’s internal review,
any subsequent investigation by the Information Commissioner’s or
hearing at a First-Tier Tribunal.
Rather, and for the avoidance of doubt, it is based on the following serious
professional conduct concerns, which I submit fall outside the remit of
FOIA regulatory oversight and directly within the remit of the IOPC.
I assert that:
1. Senior officers at Cheshire Constabulary, who directed or approved the
finalisation of this request, acted in bad faith by using a statutory
exemption as a smokescreen to avoid legitimate public scrutiny.
2. The decision-making process displays indicators of dishonesty,
obfuscation, and disreputable conduct, intended to frustrate
accountability and protect institutional interests, not the public interest.
3. The refusal, which lacked any traceable reference number, was
delivered without explanation, on the final day permitted by statute, and
appeared designed to avoid creating a document or audit trail. This raises
the possibility of misconduct in public office.
Individuals and Scope
The refusal was issued under the name of Emma Krzyzaniak – Data
Protection Advisor. While she is the only named officer, I am not alleging
that she acted alone or was the principal decision-maker.
Rather, this complaint concerns:
• “Emma Krzyzaniak and others”, consistent with IOPC requirements,
• With a particular emphasis on unidentified senior officers in the legal,
communications, information governance or Command teams who appear
to have exercised decision-making authority behind the scenes.
Standards of Professional Behaviour Engaged
1. Honesty and Integrity
There is a strong prima facie case that the refusal was not issued in a
truthful or transparent manner. The complete absence of reasoning, the
choice of an exemption normally reserved for harassing or abusive
requests, and the procedural anomalies all suggest an intent to deceive or
deflect lawful public interest inquiry.
2. Duties and Responsibilities
Senior officers have a positive duty to discharge their public functions
lawfully and to uphold the ethical expectations of policing, particularly in
cases attracting national and international scrutiny. To frustrate legitimate
access to information concerning a force’s media handling during the
Letby investigation — at a time when the Public Inquiry is ongoing —
suggests a dereliction of this duty.
3. Discreditable Conduct
The force’s handling of this matter risks bringing policing as an entity into
disrepute, not just Cheshire Constabulary. It reinforces a growing
perception of policing institutions as secretive and self-protecting,
particularly where reputational damage may result. The impact is wider
than this case: It corrodes confidence in transparency, in the
independence of public servants, and in the integrity of the police
communications function.
Why This Is Not a Matter for the ICO
The Information Commissioner may examine procedural aspects of FOIA
compliance.
However, no powers exist under the FOIA regime to investigate police
officer conduct or determine whether misuse of legal exemptions was the
result of unethical institutional behaviour.
This complaint is, therefore, most definitely not about FOIA enforcement.
It is about how the police respond, as public servants, to lawful scrutiny.
The handling of this request is symptomatic of a deeper institutional
decay — one that sees public access rights not as a legal obligation, but
as a reputational threat to be neutralised. That is a cultural issue. It is a
leadership issue. And it is a police conduct issue.
Pattern of Senior-Led Obfuscation and Media Evasion
I am not alone in facing refusal and evasion from Cheshire Constabulary
when making legitimate public interest inquiries about how they managed
communications during the Letby investigation.
On 12th May 2025, the Mail on Sunday published a column by senior
journalist Peter Hitchens documenting how the force refused to answer a
series of reasonable, time-sensitive questions regarding a mid-trial press
conference held at Manchester Hall on 30 June 2023 —an event that
coincided with the final stages of Lucy Letby’s defence.
This conference, reportedly attended by Detective Chief Inspector Nicola
Evans and Detective Superintendent Paul Hughes, was held during
defence counsel's closing speech and before the jury retired to consider
verdicts, and appears to have involved select media briefings embargoed
until conviction. Mr Hitchens reports that the event was organised jointly
with the Crown Prosecution Service but held in the CPS's absence.
Cheshire Constabulary declined to answer any of his eight follow-up
questions, despite their relevance to fair trial principles and media
neutrality.
This adds weight to the concern that the force is operating under a senior-
level directive to block scrutiny of how it managed public-facing
messaging during a case still under the spotlight of a statutory public
inquiry.
The force’s refusal to answer questions from a senior national journalist—
and its contemporaneous refusal to supply requested material under FOIA
to me—reinforce the allegation of dishonest, evasive and disreputable
conduct. The concern is no longer one of isolated incident but of
institutional culture and coordinated damage control.
Public Confidence Context
It is trite that the Lucy Letby case is one of the most controversial criminal
matters in modern British history. A statutory public inquiry is examining
the role of NHS bodies and, potentially, related and key police decisions.
Public confidence in Cheshire Constabulary has already been shaken to its
foundations.
A refusal of this nature — targeting transparency about how the force
communicated the case to colleagues and the wider public — only serves
to further deepen mistrust with the impact now creeping into lack of
confidence in the wider police service, as a result.
Such conduct cannot go unexamined if confidence in the police
complaints system is to be maintained..
Supporting Documentation
• FOIA request and refusal published here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/course_for_police_communicat
ors
• Commentary and public context published on 9 May 2025:
https://neilwilby.com/2025/05/09/cheshire-constabulary-rule-that-lucy-
letby-media-handling-request-is-vexatious
Request for Action
It is respectfully requested that the IOPC assess this matter as a
legitimate complaint of officer conduct, engaging the relevant Standards,
and not dismiss it as a matter of policy or process. The questions here go
to the heart of policing legitimacy in the public eye.
If the conduct identified above is not proportionately but robustly
investigated, the message sent to the public is this: The police in Cheshire
are free to manipulate statutory obligations to serve their own ends, with
no ethical, professional or potentially criminal consequences.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Wilby
