Neil Wilby Media

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has been asked to intervene after the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) refused to release background material linked to a communications piece published on its website under the headline: “Six myths about police media briefings busted”.

The escalation follows an Internal Review outcome issued on 15th August 2025 in which the NPCC re-affirmed its refusal to disclose drafts, emails and consultation records associated with the article. The decision leaned heavily on the law enforcement exemption at section 31(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), and the personal data exemption at section 40(2).

A section 50 complaint has now been lodged with the ICO, the statutory regulator for information rights, asking it to overturn the NPCC’s stance.

The subject article was presented as an attempt to clarify how police brief the media and to correct what they say are “common misconceptions”.

Those closer to the Lucy Letby miscarriage of justice campaign viewed it as an unvarnished attack on Mail on Sunday columnist and noted author, Peter Hitchens, who has repeatedly raised objections to the appearance of unfairness and opacity cloaking pre-trial and mid-trial press briefings, whilst the 35 year old nurse was on trial at Manchester Crown Court.

Given their stated purpose of shaping public understanding, Neil Wilby submitted a FOIA request in May 2025 asking for the evidential basis, authorship and approval process behind the Police Chiefs’ piece.

The request sought documents, communications and sign-off records, including details of any consultation with the College of Policing, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Cheshire Constabulary.

NPCC’s initial response acknowledged holding relevant material but withheld almost all of it, citing sections 31 and 40 of the FOIA. When challenged by way of Internal Review, the decision was upheld in full.

The Review, conducted by Justine Brisley, Deputy Head of the NPCC’s Freedom of Information and Data Protection Unit, accepted that some of the claimed risks “may appear hypothetical” but argued that the “likelihood” of prejudice was sufficient to engage section 31.

It concluded that disclosure would “likely prejudice the ability of NPCC to engage in open and honest dialogue with partner agencies,” asserting that such candour is vital for effective crime prevention.

On section 40, the Review repeated the line that disclosing names or roles risked identifying individuals and that no overriding legitimate interest justified doing so. It dismissed the argument that senior public-facing staff should be distinguished from junior or back-office personnel.

The Review confirmed that NPCC had not erred in its original approach and that no further disclosure would be made.

The section 50 complaint to the ICO challenges the NPCC position on four main grounds:

1. Misapplication of section 31 – The withheld material relates to a communications article, not operational policing. Section 31 protects investigatory and law enforcement functions, not PR strategies. Vague references to a “chilling effect” on deliberations fall short of the required evidential standard.

2. Flawed public interest test – The balancing exercise placed disproportionate weight on speculative risks while failing to consider the strong public interest in transparency. Police-media relations are an area of significant public concern, especially in the wake of the Nicola Bulley investigation and the Lucy Letby trials.

3. Over-extension of section 40 – Entire documents were withheld on personal data grounds, rather than being redacted. ICO guidance requires partial disclosure where possible, and senior officials with public-facing roles should not be shielded from accountability by blanket exemption.

4. Failure to discharge section 16 duty – The NPCC did not advise on how the request could be refined or partially met, despite being under a statutory duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance.

This dispute does not stand in isolation. It forms part of a broader pattern across the police service in resisting scrutiny of media handling in the most sensitive cases.

Neil Wilby Media has previously reported on repeated refusals by NPCC, Cheshire Constabulary and the College of Policing to disclose records about communications strategies adopted during the Lucy Letby investigation and trial. FOIA exemptions have been invoked in sweeping terms, citing risks to law enforcement or reputational harm. One of those requests, to Cheshire, was dismissed as ‘vexatious’ and is the subject of another, as yet, unresolved ICO complaint.

The result has been to fuel suspicion of a service-wide cover-up, whereby police bodies seek to manage public narratives behind closed doors while invoking “law enforcement” as a shield against transparency.

Media briefings are not a sideshow to policing: they are central to the relationship between the police and the public. When national bodies publish articles proclaiming to “bust myths,” the public is, surely, entitled to understand how those messages were constructed, on what evidence, and with whose approval?

Open justice, public confidence, and accountability are all diminished if such articles are immune from scrutiny. The NPCC’s stance risks turning FOIA from a tool of transparency into a defensive barrier against uncomfortable questions.

The ICO will now consider the complaint. Given their lengthy backlog, a decision is unlikely in the near future, but the investigation has now been formally triggered and acknowledged.

If the regulator finds in favour of disclosure, the NPCC could still appeal to the Information Rights Tribunal. Likewise, the same recourse is open to the complainant if the ICO backs the Police Chiefs’ stance.

For now, the outcome remains uncertain — but what is clear is that the issue of police narrative-management and its doubling down on opacity remains firmly on the agenda.

Neil Wilby Media will continue to track the case and report on developments as they arise.

____________________________________________________________________________

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 20th August 2025 at 09h05

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: NPCC

© 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.