A Freedom of Information request involving Staffordshire Police highlights a subtle but important issue in how information rights operate in practice – and how outcomes can diverge from expectations, even where processes appear compliant.
The case in brief
A request submitted in July 2025 sought information relating to police communications and internal discussions.
The response:
- Refused under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (vexatious request)
- s.14 maintained at internal review
Months later, revised, following ICO involvement, to: “information not held”
At first glance, this might appear unremarkable. Authorities are entitled to revise their position. However, the detail behind that revision is where the issue arises.
What the police confirmed
In responding to follow-up questions, Staffordshire Police confirmed that:
- No searches were carried out at the time of the original request
- This was because section 14 had been applied
- As a result, it is now “not known” whether the information ever existed or was deleted
- Emails are subject to automatic deletion on a rolling two-year basis
- No audit trail exists for deletion
- No preservation steps were taken once the request was received
The key issue
This leads to a simple but important question:
- Can an authority say information is “not held” if it never established whether it was held in the first place?
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
- Section 1 requires authorities to confirm whether information is held
- ICO guidance emphasises the need for reasonable and proportionate searches
In this case, the authority has confirmed that no such searches took place.
A procedural gap
There is also a broader procedural concern arising from the sequence:
- A request is refused under section 14
- No enquiries are made into whether information is held
- Time passes*
- The position is later revised
- Information may no longer be available
- The authority cannot determine whether it existed at the time
Even if each individual step is technically compliant, the combined effect raises a concern:
- The system may produce outcomes where the existence of information at the date of request can no longer be established.
Why this matters
This is not simply a technical issue. If this sequence were to become normalised, it could create a situation where:
- Requests are resisted early under section 14
- Consideration of what is actually held is deferred
- Routine deletion processes continue
- The factual position becomes unknowable
Importantly, this does not require bad faith. It is a function of:
- exemption use
- timing
- and data retention processes
A question for the ICO
The matter is now with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The key questions include:
- Should section 14 be applied without establishing whether information is held?
- What obligations exist to preserve information once a request is received?
- Can a “not held” response be relied upon where no searches were undertaken at the time?
- A wider issue?
There is also a broader context.
Police forces often engage with national bodies such as the NPCC on disclosure practices. Whether this case reflects a local issue or something more systemic remains to be seen.
Final thought
This case is not about proving wrongdoing. It is about something more fundamental:
- Whether the current processes ensure that the answer reflects the position at the time of the request, or whether, in some cases, that position may be lost.
That distinction matters. Because once the question becomes unanswerable, transparency has already failed.