Holding the Information Commissioner and Staffordshire Police Accountable

November 2024:

With regard to Staffordshire Police, as an example, concerns have been raised about their adherence to information disclosure legislation, prompting scrutiny by the ICO. However, despite evidence of shortcomings, the ICO seems hesitant to take a firm stance, arguing, in part, that other constabularies exhibit worse behaviour. Such reasoning raises significant questions:

• Should Staffordshire Police be granted leniency simply because they are not the worst offenders?
• Does this approach erode the ICO’s credibility as an impartial enforcer of the law?

The Case Against Relativity in Enforcement

The ICO’s position on Staffordshire Police implies a troubling precedent: if one organization’s failings are less severe compared to others, they may avoid full accountability. But this relativistic approach undermines the very purpose of regulatory oversight. Applying such logic elsewhere, would we excuse a company for minor environmental damage because another caused a larger spill?

Accountability is not a zero-sum game; every breach, regardless of scale, deserves scrutiny and corrective action.

Comparative Analysis: Other Forces, Similar Failures

While Staffordshire Police may not be alone in their lapses, comparisons with other constabularies reveal systemic issues. From the ICO’s finding (comparison) there appears to be widespread mishandling of, or resistance to, transparency. This is clearly not an isolated issue.

Staffordshire’s case is not diminished by the broader context. If anything, the failings of others underscore the need for the ICO to enforce standards rigorously, setting an example for all. Without consistent enforcement, public trust in both law enforcement and the ICO itself is at risk.

It appears Staffordshire can breath a sigh of relief because, whether known to them or not, others are worse offenders!

The Merits of the Argument

Critics may argue that the ICO’s reluctance to act decisively against Staffordshire Police signals a worrying abdication of responsibility. This is not merely about punitive measures; it is about the ICO fulfilling its mandate to ensure openness, accountability. By holding Staffordshire Police accountable, the ICO could reinforce its commitment to impartial enforcement and signal to other constabularies that compliance is non-negotiable.

Supporters of Staffordshire Police may claim that they are being unfairly targeted. However, this deflection misses the point: accountability is not about singling out but about ensuring every organization upholds the same standards. Excusing Staffordshire Police not only weakens enforcement but also disrespect the public’s right to transparency.

Staffordshire can hardly claim this latest attention came as a surprise; the ICO was alerted to the issues a year ago, the constabulary acknowledged the problem yet, despite having 12 months to address the issue, failed to do so. Some of the constabulary’s procrastination about the issue, the constabulary’s responses to requests and the ICO here.

Suggestions for the ICO and Staffordshire Police

• Equal Standards for All

The ICO should abandon the notion that comparative conduct justifies leniency. Each case should be evaluated on its own merits, with proportionate action taken regardless of how others perform.

• Transparency from Staffordshire Police

The force (‘service’?) should proactively disclose how it plans to address the concerns, demonstrating a commitment to improvement rather than waiting for enforcement action.

• Broader Reform in Law Enforcement

The ICO should launch a nationwide audit of police information practices, addressing systemic issues while maintaining focus on individual cases.

• Strengthening Public Trust

Both the ICO and Staffordshire Police must prioritize transparency in their processes to rebuild public confidence.

Conclusion

The ICO’s handling of Staffordshire Police raises fundamental questions about accountability and enforcement. Just because other constabularies might be worse does not mean Staffordshire Police deserve an easy ride. By taking decisive action, the ICO can uphold its mission to protect the public and reinforce the importance of compliance for all organizations – no matter their size or relative guilt.

Final comment

It is, at times, all too easy to criticise police constabularies. Staffordshire appear unable to recruit staff to handle information requests; a lacklustre job, too technical, underpaid … whatever the reason, throwing people at a task, demanding more resources (a common constabulary cry) is just one approach.

I have approached the constabulary suggesting a means by which they could more efficiently handle some fee paying requests. The idea:

• churn out disclosures, specifically crime reports
• receive £158.90 per report

Less staff required, more income generated. What is not to like?

This is not some quickly cobbled together, sticking plaster on a gaping wound solution. It is a tried, tested and operating process … with a forward thinking constabulary.