Cleveland Police Slammed by ICO for Failing to Disclose Key Operation Data...

The Information Commisioner is said to have told Cleveland Police that a high court application for grounds of Contempt of Court 'have not been ruled out', if the force of no public confidence fails to comply with the decision notice.

14th May 2025

The Information Commissioner’s Office has issued a landmark ruling against Cleveland Police after it's claimed they failed to adequately respond to a Freedom of Information request regarding the cost and resourcing of several major historical investigations, including Operation Sacristy and Operation Pandect.

The decision notice, issued under reference IC-334983-H9P5, confirms that Cleveland Police did not demonstrate that it had carried out a “reasonable and proportionate search” for the requested information and now been slapped with a legally binding order to search again and either disclose the data or justify its refusal in line with the Freedom of Information Act.

The Request That Triggered the Probe

The FOI request, submitted on 9 June 2024 by a member of the public, sought detailed information on the costs, staffing, and duration of the following operations:

• Operation Pandect

• Operation Sacristy

• Operation Resolute

• Operation Ardent

• Operation Seyton

• Operation Sturgeon

• Operation Magnolia (specifically the current cost)

In its initial reply, Cleveland Police claimed that—with the exception of Operation Magnolia—it did not hold any of the relevant information. However, this stance was later contradicted when, following an internal review and lengthy delays, the force released partial financial figures in January 2025. The force also confirmed it had received Home Office Special Grant funding for Operation Pandect, which was an umbrella for several of the listed operations.

ICO Findings: “A Vast Amount of Information Must Exist”

The complainant flagged a 2017 HMICFRS report that clearly referenced Cleveland Police’s own budgetary projections for Operation Pandect, including an estimated annual cost of £4.6 million and a staffing proposal of 81 personnel, including inspectors, sergeants, and constables.

The ICO agreed that these disclosures pointed to the likely existence of far more information than Cleveland Police had first admitted. The watchdog emphasised that under Section 1(1) of the FOIA, authorities must confirm or deny whether requested information is held—and if so, either release it or cite a lawful exemption.

The force failed to provide data relating to:

• The number of officers and staff involved in each operation.

• The duration of each investigation.

• Any explanation as to why Operation Sacristy, the high-profile corruption investigation into Cleveland Police itself, was excluded from its internal review findings.

Commissioner’s Order

The ICO has now ordered Cleveland Police to:

“Conduct a fresh search for the requested information in respect of all specified Operations and either disclose the information or cite an appropriate refusal notice which complies with section 17 of the FOIA.”

The force has 30 calendar days from the decision date to comply, where its claimed failure to do so may result in contempt of court proceedings against Cleveland Police under Section 54 of the FOIA.

Background on the Operations

• Operation Sacristy: An investigation into alleged corruption involving senior figures at Cleveland Police.

  
  

• Operation Pandect: A Home Office-funded historical crimes unit, including cold case murder investigations and Operation Sturgeon, which covered serious offences unearthed during broader inquiries.

  
  

• Operation Magnolia: A controversial inquiry into historical sexual abuse at HMP Kirklevington Detention Centre, with it being claimed over 800 former inmates have come forward.

A Pattern of Obstruction by the Disgraced Force ?

This is not the first time Cleveland Police has faced scrutiny over its transparency. The ICO’s decision points to what appears to be a troubling trend of incomplete disclosures, poor record management, & deliberate evasion when it comes to high-profile or politically sensitive investigations, with the ICO’s ruling giving a damning indictment of Cleveland Police’s information governance processes, raising serious questions about whether the force is deliberately stonewalling requests that might reveal uncomfortable truths about the corrupt forces past operations—and the public funding that sustained them....