Neil Wilby Media

When a high-profile civil claim is issued against a police force, one might reasonably expect the elected Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) —tasked with scrutinising that force’s conduct, performance and budget—to be aware of it, and for their office to hold some relevant record.

In Lancashire, with Clive Grunshaw in the PCC hot seat, that expectation appears to be misplaced.

A recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire (OPCC) has produced a wholly implausible result: a categorical denial that any information is held regarding what is believed to be a long-running and high-profile civil claim.

The litigant’s name was deliberately excluded from the request to not only test the robustness and good faith of the OPCC’s search and response process but to erase the possible of a refusal on privacy grounds. Those tests, it seems, failed to encourage disclosure.

Not even a ‘claim dismissed’ response. Much the most likely outcome as the claimant would, on past history, have been crowing about a success within hours of leaving court.

The OPCC’s response, issued on 2nd April 2025, states simply:

“The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire does not hold information relevant to your request.”

Given the nature and public profile of the claim—and its potential implications for public trust in policing—this conclusion is difficult to accept. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated case.

The Law and the Letter (But Not the Spirit)

The Freedom of Information Act is clear in its purpose and obligations. Under Section 1(1), a public authority must inform a requester whether it holds the information requested and, if it does, communicate that information. Under Section 10(1), this must be done “promptly and in any event no later than 20 working days”.

The OPCC’s standard acknowledgement letter, however, misapplies this legal requirement. It claims that it has “20 working days from the date of receipt to respond”, omitting the crucial term: “promptly”.

This was brought to the attention of the Commissioner in a recent note:

“The key word is PROMPTLY (emphasis added); ample legal precedent has established that the 20 day working limit is a backstop, not a target date.”

To date, the OPCC has refused to correct this statutory mis-statement.

Implausibility and Oversight Avoidance

The latest in a series of civil claims involving the same lay litigant and Lancs police, and at the heart of the latest FOIA request, is a saga which has featured repeatedly in public discourse, parliamentary discussion, and local media. It relates to longstanding concerns about police conduct and force culture. It is wholly inconceivable that the OPCC has never received a phone call, a briefing, email, or mention of it—even in passing.

Yet no records are held, apparently. Not a single line of correspondence. Not a note. No record of a phone call. Not an email. Not a strategy update. Nothing, they say.

Such a response flies in the face of sound information governance and transparency principles.

Clive Grunshaw’s statutory remit includes holding the chief constable to account and overseeing the way complaints and litigation against the force are managed. He also holds the budget and purse strings. If the PCC truly holds no record of the matter, that in itself raises questions about how seriously that remit is being taken.

More likely, the claim of “not held” is the result of a narrow, technical interpretation of what constitutes “information held”. But the law is clear: Section 3(2) of FOIA requires public authorities to consider whether information is held on their behalf, or accessible in the course of their public functions.

Oversight, strategic briefings, reputation management—these all fall within scope.

Who Guards the Reviewers?

Following the OPCC’s refusal, a detailed and legally grounded internal review request was submitted, pointing out multiple failings:

• The implausibility of “no information held”;

• Failure to describe the searches conducted;

• Non-compliance with Section 16 FOIA (duty to advise and assist);

• Misinterpretation of the FOIA ‘held’ test;

• A refusal to correct their misuse of Section 10(1).

But there’s more: The officer assigned to conduct the internal review is Ian Dickinson—the very same Governance and Accountability chief whose previous FOIA decision-making is now under formal investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

That complaint, concerning another opaque request finalisation, involving the controversial Operation Malaya (read more here), was accepted by the ICO for investigation on 1st April 2025. The subject matter is different, but the pattern of denial and disregard is familiar.

Assigning Mr Dickinson to conduct the internal review into his own department’s handling of this latest case makes a mockery of procedural fairness. It also breaches ICO best practice Guidance, which states that internal reviews should be conducted by someone unconnected with the original decision.

A Culture of Secrecy

Lancashire’s Clive Grunshaw has previously been described as “a Commissioner to whom transparency and oversight means nothing”—a headline drawn from a Neil Wilby Media article dated 26th March 2025 (read in full here) which deep dives into over a decade of ‘cover-ups’ featured in the national press. The latest FOIA failings only deepen that concern.

This is not about technicalities. It is about public confidence in one of the most powerful local offices across the policing and criminal justice landscape. A PCC is not a ceremonial figure. They are elected with a very clear mandate to scrutinise the police, to ensure complaints by the electorate, or an enquiring media, are taken seriously, and to act as a check against institutional failure.

Yet in Lancashire, information about those very functions appears to be perennially shrouded in procedural obfuscation and circular denials.

What Next?

As matters stand, a complaint to the ICO over the latest request is inevitable, just as it was over Operation Malaya. The refusal to acknowledge, even in the most basic terms, the existence of litigation involving the Constabulary undermines not only the FOIA but the democratic purpose of the PCC’s office.

The Commissioner must answer a difficult question: what does accountability mean if not transparency?

Meanwhile, the public’s trust in policing in the Red Rose county continues to erode.