A complaint against the PSNI for failing to answer Freedom of Information (FOI) requests in relation to Jonathan Creswell and the murder of Armagh showjumper Katie Simpson, has been upheld.
The Information Commissioner has instructed the PSNI to provide the material in question within a specified timeframe or the matter may go to the High Court.
This, however, is just one of numerous other related complaints all grounded on the PSNI refusing to answer enquiries relating to Creswell.
The first came after repeated stonewalling of legitimate media enquiries to the PSNI Press Office, some stretching back almost a year.
In January 2024, the Press Office was asked the date a murder inquiry was launched, and when uniform officers first requested detective input, but the enquiry was refused.
While these questions were later answered by FOI, this did not explain why the Press Office were stonewalling.
Consequently, an FOI was submitted enquiring who (by rank) within PSNI “refused to authorise an answer/provide clarification to the Press Office in relation to the murder investigation”.
This was refused and maintained at internal review, so a complaint was filed with the Commissioner.
Meanwhile, in May 2024 an FOI enquired what type of post mortem the PSNI requested (i.e. forensic or non-forensic) and on what date this was sought.
Again, the PSNI refused to answer, maintaining this at internal review and a complaint was likewise submitted.
The Commissioner held the PSNI was not entitled to rely on the reason for refusal adding to ensure legislative compliance the requested information should be disclosed or issue another reason not reliant on their original decision.
This must be rectified within 30 calendar days of the decision notice (December 19, 2024) with a warning failure to comply, “may result in the Commissioner making written certification to the High Court and may be dealt with as contempt of court”.
The Commissioner also found the PSNI breached procedural requirements by failing to respond to one of the requests within 20 working days
The PSNI has been asked to comment on the Commissioner’s decision, however, there was no response at the time of publishing.
Meanwhile, further complaints have been made including over PSNI contact with An Garda Siochana when Creswell had fled to the Republic of Ireland while wanted over alleged indecent exposure in a County Antrim stable yard.
Initially the PSNI advised an extension was required, as a decision had not been reached on whether releasing the information met the public interest test.
This was challenged as there is specific criteria when deciding on the public interest, none of which appeared applicable.
Ultimately, however, the PSNI refused to answer but switched from public interest to citing excessive costs in retrieving the information.
But how could public interest consideration have occurred if the information in question had not already been retrieved?
With that in mind, why was it too expensive to simply provide the date from that consideration?
A review was requested alongside an offer to pay the excess costs upfront.
The PSNI contend they do not accept funds to cover excess – despite this option being open to all public authorities – and stood by their refusal.
The Commissioner has been informed of both the refusal and the PSNI’s change in rationale, which clearly indicates the relevant information was readily at hand.
An acknowledgement has been received and a response is awaited.
