Neil Wilby Media

An appeal has been lodged with the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) challenging a decision by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to uphold Cheshire Constabulary’s refusal of a Freedom of Information request relating to police media handling in the Lucy Letby case.

The appeal (FT/EA/2026/0076) concerns a request made in April 2025 for material connected to a presentation delivered by Cheshire Constabulary’s communications lead at a national policing event in March 2024, titled “The Lucy Letby Case (Operation Hummingbird)”.

Cheshire Constabulary refused the request under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, asserting that it was “vexatious”. That position was subsequently upheld by the ICO in a Decision Notice issued on 23rd January 2026 (reference IC-394058-T5Y5).

Previous Neil Wilby Media reporting on the outfall from this request can be read here and here.

Background to the refusal

The original request sought information relating to the preparation, delivery and follow-up to the March 2024 presentation, which was given to delegates attending a course for police communicators at Belton Woods Spa and Golf Resort in Lincolnshire.

In its refusal, Cheshire Constabulary argued that the request formed part of a wider pattern of activity which it characterised as adversarial and burdensome. The ICO accepted that position, relying on police assertions relating to a broader “campaign”, the impact on staff, and the cumulative burden on the force.

The Decision Notice did not require Cheshire Constabulary to take any further steps.

Appeal to the Tribunal

The Appellant disputes that the request was vexatious and has brought the matter before the First Tier Tribunal under section 57 of FOIA.

In documents filed with the Tribunal, the appeal raises questions about the evidential basis for applying section 14(1), particularly where reliance is placed on contextual assertions said to originate from a public authority.

The appeal also addresses the extent to which such assertions are supported by material available to the Tribunal, and the weight that can properly be attached to them in the absence of underlying evidence.

Recent commentary from information rights practitioner and trainer, Tim Turner, has also highlighted the evidential challenges in applying the “vexatious” exemption in cases of this nature. Writing in his monthly FOI Five briefing, Mr. Turner contrasted a decision involving Transport for London — where detailed evidence supported a refusal — with another Cheshire Constabulary case, involving a request from Mail on Sunday columnist, Peter Hitchens, noting that whilst claims of burden and distress were made by the police, “no evidence” was provided to substantiate them and “nothing to suggest an orchestrated campaign.”

Procedural developments

Following the filing and serving of the Commissioner’s Response to the appeal, the Appellant has submitted a formal Reply, together with an Application for further Directions.

The Application seeks, among other matters, clarity as to the material said to underpin the assertions made by the police and then relied upon in the Decision Notice published by the Commissioner in redacted form.

At the time of writing, Cheshire Constabulary has indicated that it does not intend to participate in the appeal proceedings.

The Information Commissioner has told the Tribunal that it would prefer to have the matter determined on the papers rather than at a hearing.

Evidential issues

A central issue in the appeal is whether the conclusions set out in the Decision Notice are supported by an adequate evidential foundation.

The Decision Notice refers to a wider “campaign” involving multiple un-named individuals and a ‘ringleader’, as well as allegations of distress to staff and cumulative burden on the public authority. However, the underlying material said to support those assertions has not been disclosed within the appeal proceedings to date.

The Appellant’s position is that, in those circumstances, the Tribunal will need to consider what weight can properly be attached to the police’s discussions with the regulator.

Section 14 cannot be sustained by assertion alone; it requires an evidential foundation capable of scrutiny.

Proposed route to resolution

It is understood that a draft Consent Order has been provided to the Commissioner by the Appellant, setting out a potential basis upon which the appeal might be resolved without the need for a full hearing.

The proposed Order would allow for the withdrawal of the existing Decision Notice and the issuing of a fresh decision following reconsideration of the complaint.

No agreement has been reached at this stage, and the matter remains before the Tribunal.

Wider context

The appeal arises against the backdrop of ongoing public and political scrutiny of the investigation and prosecution of Lucy Letby, including questions raised about police communications, media engagement and ‘secret’ mid-trial briefings within Operation Hummingbird.

The extent to which such issues may properly be examined through the Freedom of Information regime is likely to be a matter of continuing interest.

Recent commentary on social media has also reflected wider debate within journalism about the use of FOIA, with some practitioners, particularly George Greenwood, the Sunday Times Investigations Editor, expressing frustration at perceived overuse of the legislation, often in deliberately provocative terms.

Next steps

The Tribunal is expected to issue further case management directions in the near future. In the absence of agreement between the parties, the appeal is likely to proceed to a hearing later in 2026.

No findings have been made by the Tribunal at this stage.

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: Friday 3rd April 2026 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 2015–2026. 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 may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.