PSNI criticised for blocking FOI on significant omission from Melia Review

The National Union of Journalists and Amnesty International UK have criticised the PSNI for refusing to answer a Freedom of Information (FOI) request around the omission of relevant details to Dr Jan Melia's Review into the death of Katie Simpson.

The FOI centres a senior officer’s full knowledge of Jonathan Creswell’s record for violence, which exactly matched concerns raised but ignored while Katie was fighting for her life having been admitted to Altnagelvin Hospital on August 3 2020 after Creswell purportedly rescued her from a hanging attempt.

She passed away six days later with police closing her death as suicide.

While PSNi believed Creswell's account, others refused and repeatedly contacted police, pointing to his previous record for violence including strangulation.

All were summarily dismissed.

While a murder investigation would eventually be launched, PSNI later claimed the delay in part was due to Creswell’s previous convictions not showing on the system.

That remained the position until an FOI earlier this year revealed the Police National Computer (PNC), which stores data on all UK offenders, was checked on August 14 2020 – five days after Katie’s death.

An addendum FOI, initially refused but overturned on appeal, indicated the officer was a Detective Chief Inspector.

Despite this changing the position, PSNI did not disclose the officer's full role to Dr Melia’s Review.

When shown the response a Department of Justice spokesperson said: “The only information provided about the actions of an individual Detective Chief Inspector on August 14 2020 is that an officer of this rank instructed a team to begin initial enquiries on that date.”

Absent the PNC specifics the Review found lack of knowledge around Creswell's record was due to officer inexperience, when in reality a senior officer was fully aware.

An addendum FOI sought the ranks/grades of staff involved around authorisation of information and when the omission was corrected for updated publication of the Review.

The blunt refusal deemed the request ‘vexatious’.

While there is scope for the vexatious exemption, it is largely grounded on information already having been provided.

It is not a weapon to be wielded by public authorities to divert from facts - however distasteful they may be.

Those facts remain unchanged and unchallenged – a senior officer knew Creswell’s record but did nothing, and the extent of that officer’s role was not fully disclosed to the Melia Review, impacting on outcomes.

A National Union of Journalists spokesperson said: "FOI legislation makes provision for refusal of vexatious requests in order to prevent unreasonable requests or time wasting. Legitimate media requests considering a matter of great public interest should not be treated as vexatious. The information sought relates to matters of significant public interest and arise from public concern at the handling of a police investigation."

Patrick Corrigan, Head of Nations and Regions at Amnesty International UK, said: “There is significant public interest in the Katie Simpson case which has been the subject of a critical Police Ombudsman’s report that found a catalogue of mistakes and breaches of the code of conduct, and an independent review by Dr Jan Melia which found institutional misogyny and systemic failures within PSNI.

“Police have a duty to answer legitimate questions from the media trying to establish basic facts about a matter of such obvious public interest. Repeated police stonewalling of enquiries from a journalist, which have resulted in multiple complaints being upheld by the Information Commissioner, does not suggest a culture of openness within the PSNI to public scrutiny of their actions. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects freedom of expression, including press and the public’s right to receive information. It’s the job of police to help uphold our human rights, not to stand in their way, even when that may prove uncomfortable for senior officers.”

The refused FOI is currently under appeal and should that fail, will be escalated to the Information Commissioner.