A British policing unit is facing backlash for instructing local forces to withhold information that should be available to the public. The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) has been advising local police forces not to disclose details on controversial matters such as the use of banned surveillance technology and the circulation of drugs.
Big Brother Watch, a privacy rights organization, accused the NPCC's central referral unit (CRU) of acting like "an authoritarian censor" rather than an entity committed to public accountability. The CRU, however, maintains that it follows legal guidelines and only provides recommendations to local forces regarding Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.
The BBC reports that it became aware of the CRU’s role in influencing FOI responses while investigating the spread of synthetic opioids. Initially, sixteen police forces shared data about crimes linked to the drugs. However, after intervention from the CRU, these forces retracted their responses.
The CRU justified the move by claiming that revealing such information could pose a national security risk by aiding drug traffickers.
Further investigation found that in the first three months of 2024, the CRU advised police forces 1,706 times on FOI requests—equaling to one in every 11 requests submitted during that period. In another instance, the CRU reportedly warned of "negative press" when instructing forces to withhold information about their use of the facial recognition tool PimEyes.
Documents obtained by Liberty Investigates reveal that forces were advised to neither confirm nor deny the software’s use. The Scotland Yard has banned the use of PimEyes.
Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at Big Brother Watch, criticized the CRU’s approach stating that pressuring forces to retract information "is the practice of an authoritarian censor, not an accountable public body." He expressed concern that the NPCC was not just offering guidance but actively directing how police forces handle sensitive transparency requests.
In response, the CRU defended its actions, stating that it considers "negative press" and "media attention" only when reviewing already published information, but insists these factors do not influence its recommendations on disclosure.
Big Brother Watch, a privacy rights organization, accused the NPCC's central referral unit (CRU) of acting like "an authoritarian censor" rather than an entity committed to public accountability. The CRU, however, maintains that it follows legal guidelines and only provides recommendations to local forces regarding Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.
The BBC reports that it became aware of the CRU’s role in influencing FOI responses while investigating the spread of synthetic opioids. Initially, sixteen police forces shared data about crimes linked to the drugs. However, after intervention from the CRU, these forces retracted their responses.
The CRU justified the move by claiming that revealing such information could pose a national security risk by aiding drug traffickers.
Further investigation found that in the first three months of 2024, the CRU advised police forces 1,706 times on FOI requests—equaling to one in every 11 requests submitted during that period. In another instance, the CRU reportedly warned of "negative press" when instructing forces to withhold information about their use of the facial recognition tool PimEyes.
Documents obtained by Liberty Investigates reveal that forces were advised to neither confirm nor deny the software’s use. The Scotland Yard has banned the use of PimEyes.
Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at Big Brother Watch, criticized the CRU’s approach stating that pressuring forces to retract information "is the practice of an authoritarian censor, not an accountable public body." He expressed concern that the NPCC was not just offering guidance but actively directing how police forces handle sensitive transparency requests.
In response, the CRU defended its actions, stating that it considers "negative press" and "media attention" only when reviewing already published information, but insists these factors do not influence its recommendations on disclosure.
