A seasoned journalist has launched a formal challenge against the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire (OPCC) after it was claimed to hold no information about a specialist task force operating in the county and costing an estimated £250,000 annually.
The task force, reportedly deployed by Lancashire Constabulary (Lancs) for several years to manage criminal complaints linked to a single individual has raised important questions about transparency and political oversight.
Neil Wilby, a newsgatherer recognised by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and an experienced information rights practitioner, with over fifteen years of experience dealing with policing matters (including contact with Lancs dating back to 2013), submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on 10th March, 2025 to the Lancs PCC, seeking details about the task force. His request, logged under the reference 2024/64, sought disclosure of:
-
The operational codename of the task force.
-
The rank of its Gold Commander.
-
A copy of the operation’s Terms of Reference.
-
Copies of emails between the OPCC and the chief constabulary mentioning the task force.
-
Data on how the task force’s cost is treated in the force’s annual budget and accounts.
-
Data on the OPCC holding the chief constable to account over the task force’s cost, efficiency, and longevity.
The OPCC responded remarkably quickly, on 13th March 2025, asserting it holds none of the requested information and directing the applicant towards Lancashire Constabulary.
This response is hard to accept and Neil Wilby asserts: “It’s inherently improbable that PCC Clive Grunshaw, with his statutory responsibilities for the policing plan, budget, and holding the chief constable to account, has no records about a £250,000-a-year operation on his patch.”
Adding: “This operation is no trivial matter. Led by Superintendent Gary Crowe, the Force Operations Manager, no less, and the Head of Legal Services, Sharon Cottam, also widely known as the Force Solicitor; with two full-time inspectors (Iain Carr and Daniel Clough) supported by response officers and backroom staff. The idea that the PCC’s office is completely unaware defies belief.”
The subject task force focuses on containing complaints related to one individual, both about him and made by him: With a structure involving strategic oversight from both Chorley South and Preston Police stations, plus tactical support for investigations, arrests and interviews, the conservatively estimated annual cost of £250,000 underscores its prominence.
As do copies of the force’s crime logs, all relating to this same individual, which run to over 5,000 A4 pages, an astonishing fact reluctantly disclosed in ongoing civil proceedings brought against Lancashire Constabulary. Which provides further clues as to the scale, longevity and cost of the task force. The claim, alleging negligence, was filed in December, 2019.
The OPCC’s role under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, 2011 includes overseeing police finances and ensuring the chief constable’s performance aligns with public demands. The number one priority for all PCCs is: ‘Securing efficient and effective policing for their area’. The task force, very obviously, falls far short of that objective.
Neil Wilby also points to a historical precedent: a similar Lancs task force, codenamed “Operation Malaya,” which operated in 2017, in connection with the same individual as the present incarnation, with evidence in the public domain clearly highlighting that the PCC was aware of it. “If the PCC knew about Malaya, which, from documents disclosed by him in 2019, show that it only operated for four months and cost very much less, why wouldn’t his office know about this longer-term, much more costly operation?” he asks.
Very much relevant to the present FOIA request is that, within those aforementioned civil proceedings, the Force Solicitor breached Civil Procedure Rules, risking contempt of court, by failing to disclose all materials to two claimants, particularly those relevant to Operation Malaya. Counsel representing the force at the most recent hearing in January, 2025, adjourned over a number of other procedural defects, could offer no explanation over the missing materials, or why the disclosure process had taken sixteen months, or a lengthy catalogue of other Rules broken.
There is also the latent and burning question. Was another, even more secret, task force sandwiched between Op Malaya and the present task force? Does the real cost of dealing with this one man run into millions of pounds, and why the overarching reluctance to record and investigate crimes he has committed, on the clearest of evidence, one might also very fairly ask?
In his internal review request, the journalist argued why each piece of information is more likely than not be held by the OPCC:
-
The operational codename is likely known, given the precedent of PCC awareness for connected but much less significant operations like Operation Malaya.
-
The Gold Commander’s rank, especially at superintendent level and heavily involving the Force Solicitor, whom appears to be the principal decision maker in “Fob Off”, should be part of oversight briefings.
-
The Terms of Reference should be held for strategic alignment checks, given the task force’s scale.
-
Emails between the OPCC and chief constabulary are routine for budget and accountability, making it highly improbable none exist regarding the task force.
-
Budget data is statutory; as the PCC manages the budget, so cost data must be held.
-
Accountability data is core to the PCC’s duty, with records likely for such a costly operation with a highly unusual protective, rather than prosecutorial, objective.
Neil Wilby is also seeking a proportionate but comprehensive search of all relevant OPCC records, including emails, meeting minutes, and budget documents.
Specification of which items are not held by their office, but might be by Lancashire Constabulary is sought, and a more detailed explanation if the “no information held” stance is maintained. “Given the likely adverse impact on public confidence in both Lancashire Constabulary and the PCC’s office, an early response would be welcome,” he concluded.
In the meantime, the case raises serious questions about transparency in Lancashire’s police oversight. The internal review’s outcome should clarify whether this task force operates ‘under the radar’ with costs hidden elsewhere in the budget and accounts, and without the PCC’s knowledge, or if the OPCC’s claim of not knowing about the task force is unfounded.
For now, this lawful challenge keeps the spotlight on a costly and almost entirely failed operation that, it is strongly argued, cannot reasonably escape the PCC’s notice. Most especially, since the FOIA request was made on 10th March, 2025.
As such, Mr Grunshaw’s next meeting of his Accountability Board, scheduled for 5th June, 2025 should prove interesting. Packed, as they usually are, with a raft of senior police officers that includes, of course, the chief constable, Sacha Hatchett.
As recently as February, 2025 he said: “The Accountability Board allows me to examine the force’s performance, ensure resources are being used effectively, and drive improvement to ensure the best possible policing service for the people of Lancashire.”
Page last updated: Friday 14th March, 2025 at 07h55
Photo Credits: Secret Service
Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.
Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.
© Neil Wilby 2015-2025. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Neil Wilby Media 
Leave a comment