I had never considered the police force to be particularly sensitive until I began questioning the Lucy Letby case. To my surprise, the Cheshire Constabulary appeared quite easily perturbed when confronted with inquiries about matters they preferred to keep under wraps.

In fact, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), known for its impartiality, has now stepped in to advise the force against being overly defensive. This development was likely a jolt to the police, as the ICO reprimanded them for their over-sensitivity.

Cheshire’s police force, keen to dodge a Freedom of Information request, had labeled my inquiry as ‘vexatious.’ They accused me of using the Act to launch an ‘attack’ against them, suspecting my motives were merely to cause trouble.

They claimed that responding to my request would lead to ‘harassment’ and ‘distress,’ suggesting that my questions bordered on an ‘obsession’ or ‘vendetta.’ I believe these were inquiries about expenditures on specific items and the involvement of police personnel in training events related to the Letby case.

There seems to be a stark contrast in the Cheshire Police’s approach to external scrutiny of the Letby prosecution and their willingness to celebrate their involvement, like when an officer received an award for his role in the case. They have also allowed staff to discuss the case in more sympathetic settings.

Soon, I’ll be discussing another example of this behavior, this time at a police officers’ conference in the United States. The force also appears eager to contribute to films where they are portrayed in a favorable light.

The ICO says that, in the course of resisting my request, they accused me of having a ‘bad faith motive’ and of lacking a serious purpose. They claimed I was merely trying to cause disruption.

The ICO summed up the police force’s attitude: ‘In Cheshire Constabulary’s view, it was clear to it from social media activity that this request [that is, mine] was being used as a mechanism to attack the organisation and the individuals within it.

‘It says that there was, at the time of the request, a focus by the complainant on the communications strategies Cheshire Constabulary used and also intense scrutiny of specific staff members involved.

The specific officer that the complainant had publicly scrutinised [presumably an individual I mentioned in my column in The Mail on Sunday]… was present at, and guided, the pre-verdict briefing referred to in the request. Cheshire Constabulary says that receiving the request further exacerbated this member of staff’s distress.’

If Lucy Letby – now enduring a living death in prison – is innocent, then her suffering is far worse than facing a few mildly probing questions from Peter Hitchens

They even complained about the way in which their conduct of the case is discussed on X (formerly Twitter). In my view, these attacks are quite ridiculous. The police are a powerful public body funded by taxation and should be subject to close scrutiny.

You might think that I had been hounding them for personal details of the private lives of police officers. But all I did was to ask Cheshire Police for transcripts or recordings of briefings they gave to selected media just before the first Letby trial opened and then in the middle of the trial.

I do, in fact, disapprove of such briefings, though they are legal. One of the reasons I disapprove of them is that even now, when the verdicts are in and the trial is long over, the police will not tell me what they said there. Why? How can a press briefing be secret?

When I first raised this in December 2024, Cheshire Police wrote to The Mail on Sunday, heavily implying that they should not have published my column. Is that their business?

I was also made urgently aware by other informal channels, which I cannot disclose, that someone up there thought that I should shut up.

Soon afterwards, we received an epistle from various notables at the College of Policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Crown Prosecution Service. This suggested that The Mail on Sunday should publish an article ‘which seeks to provide your readers with clarity’ (i.e. which took a different view from mine). Well, the ICO has now advised Cheshire Police to calm down a bit. It says: ‘The complainant [me] has a high-profile, public platform and they appear to be using it to hold Cheshire Constabulary up to scrutiny.

‘Cheshire Constabulary clearly feels aggrieved about this, but public scrutiny is one of the cornerstones of the Freedom of Information Act.’

The ICO adds, even-handedly: ‘Given the complainant’s role, they [me, again] may have focussed on the case for reasons other than genuinely held concerns.’

Well, I don’t agree – but I can cope with it saying so. I also may have done so out of ‘genuine concern’ about a possible major injustice.

If Lucy Letby – now enduring a living death in prison – is innocent, then her suffering is far worse than facing a few mildly probing questions from Peter Hitchens.

The ICO adds that Cheshire Police are a grown-up organisation and should be able to take criticism, saying: ‘However, as a fairly large law enforcement public authority, the Commissioner would expect Cheshire Constabulary to be resilient in the face of any criticisms of its handling of the case, and robust in its ability to defend itself.’ Quite.

As for X, the ICO remarks: ‘The Commissioner doesn’t accept that people with a similar interest, retweeting each other is evidence of an orchestrated campaign – rather that’s simply the way X works.’

The whole ruling will soon be on the ico.org.uk website, and I urge you to read it in full.

Cheshire Police said last night: ‘We will review the ICO decision and take stock of it. We won’t be commenting any further.’

It is a fascinating document of our time.

But in the same week that it is issued, I became aware of yet more activity by Cheshire Police to publicise their role in the Letby case, just not to me.

In August 2024, no fewer than four Cheshire police officers were scheduled to attend the Washington DC conference of a body called the International Homicide Investigators’ Association (IHIA). The online programme for this event was adorned with pictures of a grinning human skull and promised a discussion of ‘Operation Hummingbird – UK Nurse Serial Killer Investigation’.

Two hours were set aside for this. The programme said officers would discuss (among other things) ‘management of case through trial and verdicts’ and ‘the strategic management of the investigation, media and stakeholders’.

I have asked the IHIA and Cheshire Police what this cost, who paid and what was said, but they won’t tell me.

Will Cheshire Constabulary think it is ‘vexatious’ if I now put in a Freedom of Information request?