Policing Transparency at Risk: Concerns Over 'Authoritarian Censorship' by National Police Unit

A national policing unit, the Central Referral Unit (CRU), under the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), faces severe criticism for advising local forces to suppress information requests that could benefit public knowledge. The BBC’s investigation reveals the CRU has instructed local police to retract their responses to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests regarding sensitive topics such as banned surveillance technologies and the emergence of super-strength drugs, citing national security and the potential for negative press as reasons for withholding information.

• Scope of the Issue: The investigation found that the CRU intervened in 1,706 FOI requests in early 2024. More than a third of UK police forces have retracted information at the unit’s urging, raising concerns that these actions compromise public transparency.

• Criticism from Advocacy Groups: Big Brother Watch has labeled the CRU as acting like an ‘authoritarian censor,’ arguing that the unit orchestrates a uniform response to sensitive FOI requests, rather than fulfilling its role as an accountable public body.

• Legal Framework: FOI laws in the UK, in force since January 2005, are designed to ensure that information concerning government and public operations is accessible unless specific legal exemptions apply. The CRU’s practices reportedly deviate from principles intended to ensure equitable treatment of all requesters, leading to accusations of selective transparency.

• Public Trust and Accountability: Concerns over police transparency are heightened, especially given the current low public trust in law enforcement. Advocates argue that long-term transparency should be prioritized over opaque practices that serve to protect institutional reputations.

• Central Coordination and Compliance: The NPCC states its commitment to transparency while maintaining that certain information must be redacted to protect public safety. However, experts like Claire Miller suggest that further scrutiny is necessary to ensure compliance with the FOI spirit. From 2020 onward, CRU’s practices have come under increasing scrutiny, especially following an independent review of a previous unit’s handling of FOI requests which proposed significant improvements.

• Enforcement Actions: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has taken action against several police forces for failing to comply with FOI requests, marking a decline in overall responsiveness within the policing sector. With complaints about the CRU’s coordination reportedly on the rise, there’s a pressing call for accountability and adherence to the principles of the FOI Act from public bodies.