Neil Wilby Media

A routine request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) should, in theory, be a simple administrative process. government bodies, including police forces and their oversight agencies, are required to disclose information unless a clear legal exemption applies.

Yet, when journalist Neil Wilby, the author of this article, recently submitted a FOIA request to the Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) seeking details on a controversial, historic investigation codenamed Operation Malaya, the response he received was not one of transparency, but rather categorical and, on all the evidence, unjustified refusal.

The outright rejection raises serious questions about the PCC’s approach to public accountability, particularly in relation to policing operations that remain shrouded in secrecy. But it also leads to a wider issue: How much information should the public be entitled to, and where should the limits of transparency be drawn?

The simple answer is: We don’t know the full story yet.

Despite its evocative name, Operation Malaya has never been publicly acknowledged or explained by Lancashire Constabulary, or its weak and largely ineffective oversight body, the Lancs PCC.

No press statements have been issued, no official documentation has been published, and attempts to bring it into the public domain through legitimate means—such as FOIA and Data Subject Access requests—have been met with institutional resistance.

Three of the four men who were the subject of the investigation, have each, in turn, contacted Neil Wilby Media for assistance in breaking Lancashire’s collective code of omerta. Two of those three re currently embroiled in a civil claim against the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary that had its last public airing in January, 2025. Operation Malaya is at the heart of what is framed as a substantial negligence claim, any further details of which are withheld pending the outcome of a final hearing.

It emerged over a three days of hotly contested submissions on both sides, and before a circuit judge, that the chief constable had failed utterly and completely in its disclosure obligations; not a single piece of paper concerning Operation Malaya has, so far, been produced, despite it being referenced in police officer statements filed and served in defence of the claim.

Counsel for the chief constable, Julian Waters, was at a loss to explain the absence. Ten weeks later, there is still no disclosure. 

The fourth, Paul Ponting, an widely known antagonist with a lengthy and adverse history with both the police force and the PCC has also, very publicly, tried all available avenues to eke out disclosure. There is even an Operation Malaya drop down on the menu bar of his UK Corrupt Police website.

Access denied

Neil Wilby’s request, submitted via WhatDoTheyKnow FOIA platform, sought basic details:

• The date Operation Malaya was launched.

• The purpose of the operation.

• Any policies or procedures associated with it.

None of these heads of request involved information that would, on the face of it, compromise national security, jeopardise ongoing investigations, or put individuals at risk. Yet, the Lancashire PCC refused to disclose any details whatsoever.

In its response, the Lancashire PCC’s Office declined to confirm or deny whether the information even exists, citing Section 40(5A) of the FOIA, which relates to personal data exemptions.

“The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire neither confirms nor denies that it holds any information falling within the scope of your request, by virtue of section 40(5A) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”

This is a highly unusual response. Section 40 of the FOIA is primarily designed to protect personal data, preventing the release of sensitive information relating to individuals. It is a qualified exemption, meaning it must be balanced against the public interest.

Yet, the way Lancashire PCC has invoked it raises more questions than it answers:

• If Operation Malaya is a policing operation, then how does an FOIA request for its basic details engage personal data exemptions?

• If the operation does involve personal data, does that mean it is specifically targeted at named individuals rather than a broader criminal investigation?

• And, if the request was simply about confirming the existence of the operation, why was even this minimal disclosure refused?

The decision to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) the requested information is often used in highly sensitive law enforcement contexts. But in this case, where the investigation was closed more than six years ago, it seems entirely unjustified.

Complaint to the information watchdog

Neil Wilby’s formal complaint to the ICO is not just about a mishandled FOIA request—it is about the fundamental failure of those entrusted with upholding governance and transparency.

At the heart of this issue is Ian Dickinson, the official responsible for Standards & Governance at Lancashire PCC.

His role includes:

• Ensuring adherence to ethical and legal standards within the PCC’s office.

• Overseeing complaints and governance procedures to maintain public trust.

• Upholding transparency and accountability in police oversight.

Yet, in his handling of this FOIA Internal Review, Mr Dickinson has demonstrably failed to meet the very principles he is supposed to enforce.

Instead of conducting a rigorous, transparent review, he:

• Rubber-stamped the original refusal without proper scrutiny.

• Misapplied FOIA exemptions, contradicting established legal precedent.

• Ignored key public interest arguments, failing to explain his reasoning.

• Failed to meet procedural best practice, offering only a vague, inadequate justification.

If Lancashire PCC’s own Standards & Governance officer cannot meet basic ethical and professional standards, what does that say about the culture of accountability within the PCC’s office?

This is no longer just about one FOIA request—it is about whether the PCC itself is fit for purpose.

The complaint to the ICO complaint is summarised shortly, but very bluntly:

“Put shortly, the public (and an enquiring press) deserve so much better.”

That comment cuts to the heart of the issue. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner exists to hold policing to account—but who is holding the PCC itself to account?

The refusal to disclose any information about Operation Malaya, combined with Ian Dickinson’s mishandling of the FOIA review, sends a troubling message:

• Secrecy is the default position.

• Accountability is an afterthought.

• Those who should enforce ethical standards are failing to meet them.

If Ian Dickinson—a senior official responsible for Standards & Governance—cannot handle a straightforward FOIA request competently and ethically, how can the public have confidence in the PCC’s ability to oversee Lancashire Constabulary?

The problem is bigger than just one request. It is about whether the PCC is operating as a genuine oversight body or as a shield for institutional secrecy.

If the ICO upholds the complaint, it will be a significant test of Lancashire PCC’s credibility.

Because at present, Lancashire’s police watchdog isn’t watching itself (read more here).

_______________________________________________________________________________