FOIA Section 50 Complaint To ICO Challenging Cheshire Constabulary s14 (1) Vexatious Exemption
Uploaded by
PoliceCorruptionFOIA Section 50 Complaint To ICO Challenging Cheshire Constabulary s14 (1) Vexatious Exemption
Uploaded by
PoliceCorruptionFreedom of Information Act 2000 – Section 50 Complaint Regarding Cheshire
Constabulary (FOI 18787)
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am lodging a complaint under Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA) regarding Cheshire Constabulary’s refusal to disclose information requested on
7th April 2025 via WhatDoTheyKnow (FOI 18787).
The request concerned a presentation titled “The Lucy Letby Case (Operation
Hummingbird)” delivered by Cheshire’s Communications Lead on 18th March 2024 at a
police training event.
1. Overview of Request
My request sought:
• All data held by Cheshire Constabulary relating to the preparation, delivery,
observation, wash-up, and feedback from the presentation.
• Confirmation of whether the request had been discussed with the National
Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Central Referral Unit.
The request was precise, time-bound, and linked to a matter of exceptional public
interest given the national and international significance of the Lucy Letby case.
2. Grounds of Complaint
A. Misuse of Section 14(1) – Vexatious Request
Cheshire Constabulary refused the request on 8th May 2025, citing Section 14(1)
(vexatious request). The internal review, conducted by a Data Protection Advisor,
upheld this refusal, referring to unspecified concerns about “motive” and “harassment
or distress to staff”—but without providing any explanation or evidence.
This refusal is flawed for the following reasons:
• No evidence or clear reasoning supports the assertion of harassment or
distress.
• The request was focused (a specific event, date, and officer), proportionate in
scope, professionally worded, and pursued for a legitimate journalistic purpose.
• The Constabulary failed to apply the established criteria in Dransfield v ICO &
Devon CC [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), which require an objective analysis of burden,
motive, value, and potential for disruption.
• The ICO’s guidance (Dealing with vexatious requests, para 32) requires public
authorities to offer detailed justification when invoking Section 14(1). That did
not occur here.
Taken together, the refusal appears pretextual and indicative of a desire to avoid
scrutiny rather than a legitimate application of the exemption.
B. Failure to Consider Alternative Exemptions
If the material was considered sensitive—due to ongoing proceedings, operational risk,
or personal data—then qualified exemptions such as Section 31 (law enforcement) or
Section 40 (personal data) could and should have been explored, with an appropriate
public interest test applied. The failure to do so further suggests a blanket and
procedurally flawed approach to refusing disclosure.
C. Procedural Irregularities
• Reference Number Omission: The refusal notice did not include the FOIA
reference number (FOI 18787) in the body of the response. It was only present in
the email subject line, which is not visible via WhatDoTheyKnow, causing
confusion and undermining transparency.
• Delayed Response Without Justification: The response was issued late in the
afternoon on the 20th working day. Although technically within the statutory
limit, the lack of explanation for the delay raises questions about whether the
duty under Section 10(1) to respond “promptly” was met.
• Failure to Address NPCC Involvement: My specific question regarding
consultation with the NPCC Central Referral Unit was ignored in both the initial
response and the internal review. This omission is concerning in light of the
unit’s known role in coordinating responses to sensitive FOI requests.
3. Public Interest
The Lucy Letby case is one of the most serious and scrutinised criminal prosecutions in
modern British history. Public confidence in the justice system, and in how police
forces manage communications around such cases, is a matter of legitimate and
widespread interest. As a journalist accredited by the NPCC, my request was entirely
consistent with the principles of open justice and democratic accountability.
4. Remedies Sought
I respectfully ask the Information Commissioner to:
• Investigate Cheshire Constabulary’s reliance on Section 14(1) and assess its
compliance with ICO guidance and the Dransfield principles.
• Direct the Constabulary to issue a fresh decision, properly considering relevant
qualified exemptions (e.g. Sections 31 or 40) and applying the public interest test
where appropriate.
• Examine the procedural irregularities outlined above as potential evidence of
maladministration.
• Provide guidance to Cheshire Constabulary to ensure future FOIA responses are
supported by clear reasoning, lawful application of exemptions, and adherence
to procedural standards.
I am happy to provide further information or supporting materials upon request.
Yours faithfully,
Neil Wilby
