Having now received Staffordshire Police’s response to FOI reference 22641, attached and @ WDTK (link here), I would be grateful if you would continue with your investigation into this matter.
The authority’s latest response clarifies a number of points which, in my view, raise material issues regarding the handling of my original request (FOI 21573).
In particular, Staffordshire Police have now confirmed that:
- no searches or enquiries were carried out to determine whether the requested information was held,
- this was because a section 14 (vexatious) refusal was applied at the time,
- as a result, the authority now states it is “not known” whether relevant information ever existed or was deleted,
- email deletion occurs automatically on a rolling basis,
- no audit trail exists for such deletion, and
- no steps were taken to preserve potentially relevant information once the request was received.
These points appear to establish that, at the time the original request was made, the authority did not take steps to determine whether information was held, and is now unable to establish whether relevant material may have existed at that time.
My understanding is, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
- Section 1 requires determining whether information is held
- Section 14 is an exemption, but it does not remove the duty to properly handle the request
It is redundant of me to ask Staffordshire police whether they took reasonable steps to determine what was held as they have stated they did not.
Procedural concern
I would also respectfully raise a broader procedural concern arising from the chronology of events.
The sequence appears to be:
- request submitted (July 2025),
- refusal issued under section 14,
- position maintained through internal review,
- and only revised to “not held” following ICO involvement.
This raises the question of what gave rise to the change in position, and whether the original reliance on section 14 had the effect — intentionally or otherwise — of delaying consideration of whether the information was held.
Given the authority’s confirmation that no searches were undertaken at the time, and that email deletion occurs automatically on a rolling basis without audit trail, there is a potential concern that the use of section 14 may have had the practical effect of allowing time to pass during which potentially relevant information could no longer be established as held.
I do not assert that this was the intention in this case. However, if such a sequence were left unexamined, it could risk creating a procedural pathway by which requests are resisted under section 14, only to be revisited later when the factual position can no longer be determined.
Even if relevant information had already been deleted prior to my request, the process described by Staffordshire Police gives rise to a further concern. Where information remains available at the date of a request, but no enquiries are undertaken due to the application of section 14, and deletion operates automatically on a rolling basis without audit trail or preservation, there is a clear risk that such information may cease to exist before its existence is ever established. In those circumstances, the position of “information not held” may arise not because the information was not held at the time of the request, but because the authority did not take steps to determine whether it was held before routine deletion processes took effect.
Even if everything described by the authority is technically correct, the combined effect of applying section 14 without enquiry, together with automatic deletion processes operating without audit or preservation, appears capable of producing outcomes in which the existence of information at the date of request can no longer be established.
I do not suggest that any deliberate destruction has occurred. However, I would respectfully invite the ICO to consider whether such circumstances risk undermining the protections intended by section 77 of the Act, insofar as information may cease to exist after a request has been made without its status ever having been determined.
Matters for consideration
I would also be grateful if the ICO could consider the authority’s application of section 14 in this case.
The exemption was applied at the initial request stage and maintained at internal review, yet has now been withdrawn and replaced with a “not held” position. The authority has confirmed that, at the time the exemption was applied, no searches or enquiries were undertaken to establish whether the requested information was held.
In light of this, I would be grateful if the ICO could consider:
- whether the application of section 14 in these circumstances was appropriate; whether it was appropriate to apply section 14 without first establishing, even at a basic level, whether the requested information was held.
- Whether the authority has complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, given that it now states it does not know whether the information existed; whether the authority took reasonable steps to understand the scope and nature of the request before applying the exemption, and
- Whether reasonable steps should have been taken to preserve potentially relevant information once the request was received, particularly in light of automatic deletion processes.
- Whether the revised “not held” position can be relied upon where the authority has confirmed that no searches were undertaken at the time of the request.
- Whether the change in position following ICO involvement warrants examination, in order to ensure that similar procedural approaches do not arise more broadly; what gave rise to the subsequent change in position following ICO involvement.
- The delay addressing the matter
This sequence raises a concern as to whether the exemption was applied without a sufficient evidential or procedural basis at the time, and whether that contributed to the present inability to determine whether information was held at the date of the request.
I raise these points respectfully and to assist the ICO in ensuring that the requirements of the Act are applied consistently and transparently.
Finally, given the reference within the underlying material to engagement with national policing bodies, I would be grateful if the ICO could consider whether any external advice or guidance (for example from the NPCC or any associated unit) was sought by the authority at any stage in relation to the handling of this request or the application of section 14.
I raise this only to ensure that the full decision-making context is understood.
I would therefore be grateful if you would proceed with the investigation.