By BBC Shared Data Unit, BBC Local News Partnerships: A national policing unit that was criticised for telling local forces to block the release of information under transparency laws has u-turned on a pledge to reform. The central referral unit in the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) had said it would stop recording a requester’s identity when advising forces on Freedom of Information responses. It made the pledge following a BBC investigation, which suggested the unit was not adhering to the spirit of transparency laws.
It has now reversed the decision following further consultation. Campaigners have called for an investigation.
Oliver Feeley-Sprague, Amnesty International UK’s military, security and police director, said it was a “deeply troubling practice that must be halted immediately, pending a thorough investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)”.
Earlier this year, the unit said it would stop recording names shared with it by forces from March, in a bid to “uphold the highest standards of FOI practice”.
However, in four months since then, the names of requesters were recorded in 97% of cases where the CRU was consulted on local forces’ requests, the BBC can reveal.
The CRU said it reversed its decision after “further consultation with FOI representatives from all forces to determine what impact this might have”.
Ashleigh Beney, head of the CRU, said she was “comfortable this was transparent and within legislation, allowing the unit to provide relevant and accurate advice”.
Requesters’ details were recorded to help check if other forces had also asked for advice on the same request and spot repeat requests, and to determine if any requests were vexatious.
Those details also helped consider the purposes for which information could be used if published, and the possible impact on public health and safety, she said. CRU’s advice was otherwise provided following an applicant blind principle, she added.
The BBC previously reported how the CRU had been recording requesters’ names, and whether they were members of the media. Staff had also discussed internally when responses would “likely attract media attention”.
The CRU had also advised forces to retract information they had previously released on topics including the use of banned surveillance software and the spread of super-strength drugs.
Subsequent reporting by The Detail revealed the CRU had advised the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) to withhold the release of information under FOI about its use of Cellebrite phone-hacking technology on a journalist’s phone – even though some information was already public. Democracy for Sale then reported on CRU’s advice to suppress information about police use of Palantir, despite a policing covenant promising “maximum transparency by default” for AI use.
“Anyone requesting information from their local police force would not reasonably expect their query – or personal details – to be passed to a secretive central policing unit whose apparent role is to help police avoid answering questions by leaning on sweeping and overly broad exemptions,” Mr Feeley-Sprague said. “This looks less like a freedom of information system and more like a freedom from scrutiny service, designed to shield police from accountability, particularly when the identity of the requester is known.”
Beney said the identity of the requester had no impact on how the response was handled and the risk of potential bias was minimal. She also said the CRU had offered the Information Commissioner’s Office a voluntary inspection, but it declined. A spokesperson for the ICO did not answer why that offer was declined, but said: “We have not seen evidence to date that would cause us concern with the handling of information requests by the National Police Chiefs’ Council Case Review Unit but we will continue to consider and review concerns raised.”
Jake Hurfurt, the head of research and investigations at campaign group Big Brother Watch, has raised concerns in a complaint and a request to investigate the CRU further, addressed by letter to the Information Commissioner personally. His concerns included:
Forces were breaching legal deadlines for FOI responses while awaiting CRU advice
Similarities between the CRU and the Clearing House recording not only requesters’ names but also their professions, which brought into question whether advice was being provided in line with the applicant-blind principle
The CRU citing reputational damage to police forces in its previous FOI advice, which Hurfurt said was not a relevant consideration within the law
“There is a real danger that linking a name to a request could have an impact on the response, even unintentionally, especially when there is an obvious link to a frequent FOI requester, such as a journalist or campaign group,” Hurfurt said.
The ICO spokesperson said: “There is nothing in FOI law that prevents public bodies like the police seeking advice from a central body on the correct interpretation of the law in complex cases.
“It is important, however, that any such function does not prevent public authorities from complying with statutory deadlines, or any other requirements, such as the requestor blind principle.”
Phil Brickell, Labour MP for Bolton West, said: “Police forces up and down the country do absolutely vital, challenging work keeping us safe. But given the power they rightfully hold to enforce the law, it is quite natural that they are held to the absolute highest standards.
“Those standards have not been met here, and this is damaging the public trust the police need to do their jobs. There are very good reasons for most FOI applicants to have their identities protected, including to guard against bias and prejudice. It is bad enough that this principle was not being observed in the first place, even worse that the NPCC appears to have reneged on its subsequent commitment to do so.
“I urge the NPCC to follow through with what they have promised without further delay, so as not to detract or distract from the crucial work being done by their frontline colleagues.”
What is Freedom of Information?
FOI laws came into force in the UK in January 2005 and allow anyone to apply to government or public bodies to see information, such as crime statistics or details on expenditure.
Using those laws, citizens can ask for information from people in power – sometimes including details they might prefer had stayed a secret. The Freedom of Information Act presumes each request should lead to information being disclosed, unless a legal exemption applies. Public organisations are also recommended to follow the so-called “applicant-blind principle” when responding to FOI requests. The principle states everyone should get the same level and quality of response, regardless of whether it is their first request or they use the act regularly in their work such as a journalist or researcher, or someone making their first request.
The CRU, however, recorded whether requesters were members of the media and their organisation. The unit previously told the BBC it was not subject to the applicant-blind principle because it was only acting in an advisory capacity, but also said it would stop the practice from March 2025.
Clearing House concerns
In 2022, a separate government unit which advised other departments on their responses to FOI requests was recommended to be replaced by an independent review due to poor practice.
The so-called Clearing House was part of the Cabinet Office. It was alleged to have profiled journalists and treated their FOI requests inappropriately. A review of its work rejected its approach of circulating the names of requesters who had asked the same questions of several departments – a so-called round robin requester – to help it coordinate similar responses. The review found 89% of government FOI teams “demonstrated specific concern and uncertainty around the default use of requester names as identifiers undermining Data Protection Act (DPA) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) principles”.
The government’s response to the review was to say it would pilot a new system “immediately”. The BBC Shared Data Unit’s research, however, shows the CRU continued to match names to round robin requests nearly three years after the Clearing House recommendations were published.
Bath Voice and Local Democracy Reporters
The journalists are funded by the BBC as part of its latest Charter commitment, but are employed by regional news organisations. A total of 165 reporters are allocated to news organisations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland including Bath Voice. These organisations range from television and radio stations to online media companies and established regional newspaper groups. Local Democracy Reporters cover top-tier local authorities, second-tier local authorities and other public service organisations.
Bath Voice Monthly Newspaper is distributed free to thousands of homes and some supermarkets – distributed from the first of the month. Harry Mottram is the News Editor
Email him at news@bathvoice.co.uk Bath website: https://bathvoice.co.uk/news/
Bath Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/bdtf2kep Also on Twitter: https://twitter.com/bath_voice And Bluesky @bathvoicenews.bsky.social And also on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/harrymottram6/
Read the newspaper online at :https://issuu.com/bathvoice
To advertise to thousands of Bathonians call Shaun on 07540 383870 or email him on sales@bathvoice.co.uk