Neil Wilby Media

When a police force undertakes a major investigation under intense public, press and TV scrutiny, financial transparency isn’t a bureaucratic footnote—it’s a core duty. An obligation that isn’t just common sense—it’s embedded in policing’s own operational guidance.

Cheshire Constabulary’s recent claim that it holds “no information” on the costs of Operation Duet—the investigation into potential corporate manslaughter connected to the Lucy Letby case—is not only implausible, but directly contradicts national policing standards. Moreover, it reflects a troubling pattern of resisting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) transparency seen in responses to other requests made to the same police force.

National Standards set the benchmark

The Major Crime Investigation Manual (MCIM), jointly issued by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council in 2021, outlines clear expectations:

• Chief Officers must ensure major crimes are adequately resourced—including financially.

• Senior Investigating Officers (SIOs) may oversee devolved budgets covering forensic testing, overtime, travel, and staffing.

• Strategic Investigators (PIP4) are tasked with managing resources and keeping Gold Command informed, including on financial matters. 

These provisions confirm that financial tracking is not optional—it is built into the architecture of major investigations.

Operation Duet: High-profile, resource-intensive, and financially tracked

Operation Duet clearly qualifies as a critical incident—one where police response and resource allocation significantly shape public confidence. Given the national attention and severity of the case—linked to the Lucy Letby trial and potential accountability of senior managers at the Countess of Chester Hospital —financial oversight isn’t just prudent; it’s mandated by MCIM.

So, the FOIA response that “no information is held” about expenditure up to 31st March 2025, or budget for the financial year 2025/26, feels not just implausible, but contradictory to national operational guidance (the full FOIA request and response can be read here).

It leaves the named Senior Investigating Officer (SIO), Superintendent Paul Hughes, a role that almost invariably carries responsibility for budgeting and expenditure, with serious questions to answer.

An emerging pattern of obscurity

This isn’t the first instance where Cheshire Constabulary has drawn criticism for resisting transparency.

In May 2025, an FOI request made by the author of this article, Neil Wilby, seeking details of the force’s communications strategy during the Lucy Letby investigation—specifically a presentation delivered by its Communications Lead at a national training event—was refused under Section 14(1) of FOIA as “vexatious.” The refusal offered no reasoning, lacked a reference number, and arrived at the statutory deadline—omitting procedural safeguards fundamental to FOI accountability.  The sustainability of the vexatious exemption now rests with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

That refusal also prompted a formal complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), alleging misconduct—including lack of integrity, a failure to uphold public duties, and flawed professional judgment in invoking a vexatious exemption for a legitimate and narrowly focused public interest request.

Requests to Cheshire Constabulary by Mail on Sunday columnist, Peter Hitchens, and highly respected Lucy Letby innocence campaigner, Debbie Kennett, an Honorary Research fellow at the University College of London, have met similar stonewalling when trying to unravel Operation Hummingbird, one of the most controversial murder investigations in the history of the police service. 

Taken together with the “no information held” stance on Operation Duet, this suggests a broader reluctance to engage with FOI transparency—even when information requested pertains directly to an investigation of profound public concern.

A common factor is that Supt Hughes was also the SIO for Op Hummingbird.

Three possible explanations—and why they fall short

 – Too Narrow a Definition of “Information Held”: Perhaps the force argues that unless costs are explicitly labelled under “Operation Duet”, they don’t meet the request scope. But FOIA demands any recorded information be disclosed, regardless of departmental terminology.

 – Costs Exist but Were Withheld Without Citing Exemptions: If the information exists but was deemed sensitive, protocol requires citing an appropriate exemption. Simply saying “no information held” without any basis is procedurally unjustifiable.

 – A Genuine Absence of Tracking—Deserving of Scrutiny: If the force truly isn’t tracking spend on a critical, national-level investigation, that is of itself alarming. It points to serious deficiencies in financial oversight and governance.

Why this matters: Trust, Accountability, and Public Interest

 – Financial Oversight: Public funds—probably by now running into £millions—are being deployed in a high-stakes investigation. Taxpayers and stakeholders have a right to transparency.

 – Public Confidence:The Letby case has already shaken trust in the criminal justice system to its very foundations. With a statutory public inquiry set to report early next year and a media-intensive environment, accountability is more essential than ever.

 – Precedent A pattern of vague refusals and “no information held” claims risks damaging the integrity of FOIA as a tool for legitimate scrutiny—if one force can opt out of transparency in high-profile cases, others may follow suit. Indeed, the National Police Chiefs Council, in response to another Lucy Letby related FOIA request made by Neil Wilby, provided a similarly implausible response when deciding that release of details pertaining to a media release may breach national security (read more here).

Conclusion

Anchored in the NPCC/College of Policing’s operational guidance, Cheshire Constabulary’s claim of holding no financial records pertaining to Operation Duet is not just implausible—it directly conflicts with the Professional Standards and Code of Ethics it is duty-bound to follow. Coupled with broader tendencies toward opaque FOI responses in Letby-related matters, this pattern underscores an urgent need for corrective measures.

Whether through internal review, regulatory oversight by the ICO, or external scrutiny by the IOPC, the force, and the wider police service, must align its practice with its own Standards. Transparency is not discretionary—it is the foundation of public trust and the bedrock of policing by consent in England and Wales.

____________________________________________________________________________

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: Monday 8th September 2025 at 07h55

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: NWM

© 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.