Neil Wilby Media

Lancashire Constabulary’s refusal to answer a basic Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request – whether £30,000 in court-ordered costs has been recovered and if breaches of a harassment-related injunction have been tackled – isn’t just bureaucratic stubbornness. It’s a calculated sidestep, now under the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) scrutiny.

A complaint lodged earlier today (6th April 2025) hints at a police force desperate to hide its tracks.

The FOIA Request: Simple Questions, Opaque Answers

Filed on 18th February 2025, the request, carefully framed by journalist Neil Wilby, the author of this article, sought answers to two basic questions:

1. The date(s) the defendant in civil claim F70LV339 paid £30,000 in costs to the Chief Constable.

2. The number of enforcement actions against breaches of a 2020 injunction barring harassment of police officers.

Using only the court URN, the request deliberately sidestepped personal data issues by focusing solely on operational outcomes. Especially so, given that the defendant has publicised details of the case extensively online, including the regular characterisation of the judge as “corrupt”. One of many arbiters he has similarly labelled.

The Constabulary’s response on 13th March 2025 incorrectly cited Section 40(5) of the FOIA, refusing to confirm or deny holding the data on privacy grounds. An internal review outcome delivered on 4th April doubled down, but now invoking Section 40(5B)(a)(i); again arguing, without cogent reasoning, that disclosure of a date and a number would breach the Data Protection Act 2018.

This doesn’t appear to stand up to even passing scrutiny: The Upper Tribunal (Information Rights) in Goldsmith v ICO & Home Office [EA/2008/0085] ruled that bare dates and numbers aren’t personal data, unless identification is straightforward. That threshold is not met here.

Even though it is reasonable to expect that a law enforcement agency would be abreast of legal precedents that impact upon its operations, that does not appear to apply at Lancashire’s police headquarters. In a department that sits four square in the force’s Criminal Justice and Standards portfolio, no less.

Moreover, the defendant’s repeated public posts already spotlight the case. Confirming the records exist reveals no new harm. The review’s justification – that “no inferences can be drawn” – is unsupported and appears more like a reflexive dodge than a reasoned defence of their decision.

If Goldsmith sets the bar, Lancashire Police has limbo-danced beneath it. The refusal to disclose non-identifying operational data, already partly in the public domain, flouts both the spirit and letter of FOIA precedent.

Meanwhile, insider whispers continue unabated: the £30,000 has still not been paid, interest now tops £11,000, and injunction breaches remain unchecked.

What’s Being Hidden – And Why It Matters

But this is much more than a paperwork dispute between an investigative journalist and a police force: The uncollected costs – public funds, remember – and ignored injunctions raise fundamental questions about governance, officer welfare, and public trust.

When a force fails to enforce a hard-earned but solemn court Order, designed to protect its own officers from internet abuse and harassment, it sends a chilling message. How can serving officers feel safeguarded when their employer shrinks from enforcing legal protections? At least one middle-ranking officer is known to be very unhappy about the situation.

Police Federation reps have long warned of growing assaults and harassment against frontline staff. Indeed, the law relating to emergency workers was changed to give them additional protection. Reflecting the inaction here in Lancashire as a deeper rot – a lack of urgency from the top brass in backing up words with enforcement.

Enter the Absent Overseer: PCC Grunshaw

Clive Grunshaw, Lancashire’s Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), should be asking hard questions about these twin scandals – not least as he and his staff has previously been the target of persistent and unwelcome attention from the same antagonist.

But instead of demanding accountability from the force, he mirrors its evasiveness.

The perennially controversial Grunshaw, first elected in 2012 on Labour’s transparency ticket, has become emblematic of its failure. His office’s own FOIA lapses were exposed in a Neil Wilby Media article published on 2nd April 2025 (read in full here): “Transparency Crisis: How Police Commissioner Continually Undermines Freedom of Information Act.”

In a damning indictment, it detailed how his staff claimed to hold “no information” on a substantial and potentially damaging civil claim in which they were deeply involved.

The review was assigned to Ian Dickinson – the same OPCC official repeatedly criticised over previous FOIA mishandling and a loyal retainer from the pre-PCC Police Authority days.

A History of Secrecy: The Expenses Legacy and Beyond

Grunshaw’s relationship with transparency has long been fraught. His 2013 expenses scandal, triggered by a forensic FOIA request from Lancashire county councillor and noted transparency campaigner, Sam Chapman, uncovered double claims totalling over £1,200 for journeys between Fleetwood and Preston.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission investigated whilst Grunshaw was suspended as PCC by the Labour Party. The Crown Prosecution Service concluded there was insufficient evidence of dishonesty but found 37 “accounting errors”. He repaid the money and declared himself vindicated. Critics called it a whitewash. You, the reader, decide.

In 2014, another blow landed in the Grunshaw midriff: he repaid £796.70 after over-claiming mileage on a police-leased car. Again, the blame was attributed to a “clerical error”—not, notably, to any failure of oversight by OPCC senior management.

From 2016 onwards, the rot deepened: His office buried a misconduct probe into a senior officer’s affair with a junior colleague—with whistleblowers gagged and findings hushed—prompting whispers of a cover-up. By 2018, Grunshaw faced more political heat over a £2m police station sale shrouded in secrecy, with FOIA requests dodged and critics alleging cronyism. His 2021 ousting came after a botched rape case review with victim complaints ignored and data withheld—fuelling Tory Andrew Snowden’s landslide win.

That first term as PCC had also blurred lines between public office and political messaging, layered over with opaque budget decisions. During the COVID-19 crisis, when strong leadership was needed more than ever, he was conspicuously absent. Notably, whilst other PCCs were selflessly putting themselves out on the front line with emergency and essential workers.

Since his re-election to the PCC role in 2024, and one has to ask what on Earth the Lancashire electorate was thinking, Grunshaw’s lack of meaningful challenge allows a secretive force to operate untroubled by meaningful scrutiny.

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 mandates the PCC to ensure efficiency and transparency. Yet there’s no sign he has ever queried the now retired Chief Constable Chris Rowley, or his successor, Sacha Hatchett, who took the top job in 2024 after serving as Deputy since September, 2021, about the the unpaid costs or injunction breaches.

His office’s “no records” stance on the very litigation the force pursued mirrors the Constabulary’s NCND (neither confirm nor deny) defence. It suggests a shared agenda: Opacity and the attrition of legitimate journalistic inquiry.

Neil Wilby’s ICO complaint alleges systemic FOIA failings, breaching sections 16 (duty to assist) and 17 (refusal notice clarity). But Grunshaw’s long track record of evasion underpins it all. A PCC who routinely dodges scrutiny can’t demand it from others.

The Cost of Inaction

Five years after a court ordered the defendant to pay, a sum now totalling £41,000, including interest, may still be missing from the force coffers. The injunction designed to protect officers is seemingly ignored, even as the breaches remain visible online.

This isn’t just about missing cash. It’s about enforcing the rule of law. It’s about showing officers that the system has their backs. And it’s about not letting those who harass police officers and staff flaunt their defiance with impunity.

This Can’t Be Allowed To Stand

Clive Grunshaw must publicly justify why he has not demanded answers from the Chief Constable on the unpaid costs and the enforcement failures. If he cannot, he should resign.

Chief Constable Hatchett must do the same: either disclose the data or explain the legal basis clearly and credibly. Hiding behind flimsy arguments and defying legal precedent will no longer wash.

The ICO should widen its lens and investigate Grunshaw’s office alongside the force. This is a twin and institutional crisis of transparency, not a single rogue response.

And Lancashire residents? They must repent and purge the sin of re-electing Grunshaw and collectively act. Email councillors. Contact MPs. Demand answers from the Police and Crime Panel. Ask for evidence of the transparency Grunshaw promised in 2012 and 2021.

What Readers Can Do:

• Email: lancashire-pcc@lancashire-pcc.gov.uk

• Contact the Police and Crime Panel: [Lancashire PCP Website]

• Submit a FOIA: Use [WhatDoTheyKnow.com]

• Write to your MP: Ask them to raise this with the Home Office

This is more than a local scandal. Lancashire’s FOIA fiasco reflects a national blight – with PCCs like Grunshaw, and before him, Greater Manchester’s Beverley Hughes, West Yorkshire’s Mark Burns-Williamson, and North Yorkshire’s Julia Mulligan, failing to bridge the accountability and integrity gap.

Neil Wilby says: “The ICO can tweak the rules, but only public and media pressure can break this cycle of evasion. Lancashire deserves a force that answers, and a PCC who dares to ask.”

Adding: “The time is up for half-measures. Tear down the veil, or watch public trust crumble in the dark.”

_________________________________________________________________________