Neil Wilby Media

The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), which represents chief constables, and their deputies and assistants from police forces across the UK, has been formally requested to review its decision to withhold key information about a high-profile article it published in December 2024 on the subject of police-media relations.

Titled “Six Myths About Police Media Briefings Busted”, the article was presented by the NPCC as a bid to correct what it says are public misconceptions about how police forces handle communications with the media:

1. Media briefings aren’t about shaping stories, but providing journalists with background to ensure accuracy and context—citing the Lucy Letby case as an example.

2. Briefings are rooted in professional practice and backed by guidance from the College of Policing and press organisations, including the Crime Reporters’ Association and Society of Editors.

3. They don’t foster cosy relationships, but maintain constructive liaison intended to inform the public.

4. They complement court processes and are attended by professional journalists—30 attended the Cheshire briefing on Letby 

5. The NPCC clarified that College guidance on non-reportable briefings dates back to May 2017, countering suggestions it was a recent development 

6. The NPCC re-affirmed that it does not seek to influence what is published, but values a free press and aims to assist accurate reporting

However, the Chiefs’ refusal to disclose background materials underpinning the article has now prompted a searching internal review request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The original FOIA request—submitted by journalist Neil Wilby—sought records relating to the article’s creation, consultation, and approval process. It was narrowly framed, using many years’ experience, in anticipation of resistance from the NPCC.

In its response to the request, delayed for 4 weeks whilst a public interest test was carried out, tt was confirmed it held relevant information, including internal communications and details of consultations with the College of Policing, the Crown Prosecution Service, and Cheshire Constabulary. Despite this, disclosure was refused, citing sections 31(1) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal data) of the Act.

The response claims that releasing information about media handling could have a “chilling effect” on frank internal discussions and harm policing by prejudicing crime prevention and the apprehension of offenders.

This position has been formally challenged, with the internal review arguing that section 31 is intended to protect operational policing, not media or communications strategy. The NPCC’s reliance on this exemption is set out as speculative and unsupported by evidence. The review request also highlights what is described as a flawed public interest test, with the NPCC allegedly failing to give sufficient weight to transparency around how national policing bodies engage with media narratives.

There is further criticism over the application of the personal data exemption, suggesting that very senior or public-facing officials involved in the drafting of the article should not be shielded from scrutiny by blanket redactions.

The “Six Myths” article followed growing criticism of Cheshire Constabulary’s handling of the Lucy Letby investigation and trial, with commentators—most notably, and effectively, Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens—questioning a number of aspects of the force’s media strategy before, during and after the trial.

The NPCC’s intervention late last year was viewed in some quarters as an attempt to manage or suppress emerging public concerns, including fast-growing campaigns challenging Miss Letby’s convictions for murders, or attempted murders, of children under her neo-natal care at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016. Her challenge to those controversial ury findings  currently sits with the Criminal Case Review Commission.

The internal review request, which can be viewed in full here, calls on the NPCC to revisit its reliance on FOIA exemptions, reconsider the withheld disclosures, and assess whether it complied with its legal duty to assist applicants under section 16 of the Act.

The NPCC is expected to respond within the 20-working-day timeframe set out in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice. If its position remains unchanged, a referral of the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office will follow.

Neil Wilby says: “In earlier and robust exchanges with its disclosure officers during the course of thsi request, it was submitted to the NPCC that the use of section s31(1)(a)(b) of the Freedom of Information was a nullity and bordered on bad faith. To me, having dealt with the opaque, and often inept, NPCC for many years, it was a ruse to delay the outcome of the request whilst a sham public interest test was carried out. That remains my position – and one I will take to Information Rights Tribunal for determination, if necessary”.

He concludes: “Whether the chilling effect is real or rhetorical, the public’s right to understand how policing narratives are shaped in the aftermath of one of the UK’s most notorious criminal cases remains undiminished.”

The NPCC acknowledged the internal review request promptly but fell into error when estimating the date of their response which they say is tomorrow (24th July 2025). It is a minor error, of course, and one anyone could make, but it is also an indicator of the sloppy way the Chiefs’ Council is run, more generally.

______________________________________________________________________________

Neil Wilby is a journalist, court reporter and transparency campaigner who has reported on police misconduct, regulatory failures, and criminal and civil justice since 2009. He is the founder and editor of Neil Wilby Media, launched in 2015.

Page last updated: Wednesday 23rd July, 2025 at 11h50

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.

Image Credits: Reuters

© 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.