DC 2346 Neil Patrick of Cambridgeshire police lies to victim of a data breach

Lying Police

DC Neil Patrick of Cambridgeshire police has been reported for his part in a data breach of Mr Ponting’s personal data.  The details of that are here.

Dc Neil Patrick was questioned under caution (via email), the following questions was put to him;


For the benefit of clarity, I AM PUTTING YOU ON NOTICE of further action, and I kindly ask you to answer the following questions under the following caution.

You do not have to say anything, but, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

I assume you understand the above caution and that it does apply in civil proceedings,


  1. How did you acquire my personal data (my email) from the Data Compliance Team (DCT)

  2. Did you ask the DCT if they had my data?

  3. Why did you ask DCT if they had my data?

  4. Did the DCT tell you they had my data?

  5. When did DCT tell you they had my data?

  6. Did the DCT tell you they had my data prior to you asking?

  7. You emailed me on 24th Sept 2021, “You emailed our Information Rights Team for a Subject Access Request, using email address paul@xxxxxxxx.com”, how did you become aware I had made a SAR?

  8. Are you aware of the Data Protection Act

  9. Are you aware of GDPR?

  10. Are you aware of what a lawful policing purpose is?

  11. Are you aware my email address in my personal data?

  12. Are you aware that asking if I would give a statement is not a public interest matter?

  13. Did you email your request for my data to the DCT?

  14. Did they email their response to you with my data?

  15. Did you tell the DCT you needed my data for policing reasons?

  16. What reasons did you give when seeking my personal data?

  17. Did you tell the DCT that my data was used within the definition of ‘PUBLIC INTEREST’?

  18. Did you tell the DCT that I was a defence witness?

  19. Did you tell the DCT that the CPS evidential threshold had not been met?


DC Neil Patrick, aware the questions put to him were correctly declared as being ‘under caution’, responded with the following (in relation to the questions).


Information rights contacted me as a Subject Access Request had been made by you to them. This was to enable any information held by me in my investigation that was relating to you to be shared with information rights department for their assessment on disclosure. This is usual practice for the Information rights department to contact officers to ask for the specific information related to the subject if they are investigating any matters linked to the subject. I supplied this information to them.

I was then requested by the Crown Prosecution Service to make contact with you and ask if you would be willing to provide a statement detailing your involvement in the case.

I was aware the Information rights department had been in contact with you, so I then requested your contact details for the lawful purpose of investigating a crime.

I then emailed you asking if you wished to provide a statement, which you declined but you provided your statement of truth that you had supplied to the Family Court. This statement is part of the case CPS are considering.

Again if you wish to proceed with your Civil action please direct this to the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police.

Kind regards


Neil Patrick
Detective Constable 2346 | Southern CID


To which, the following response was sent to DC Neil Patrick.



Thank you for the explanation. That is just what I needed as now I can seek the communication that you have confirmed exists between you and the information rights officers! Thank you.

Firstly, the information rights officers would have no reason to suspect you held any information about me, as, at that time, you had had no involvement with me.

As you say they contacted you and and you contacted them, none of this was released under Subject Access, leading me to assume you have just lied to me.

That then leads me to assume that, if you are telling the truth, (and I suspect you are not), then information rights will have contacted every officer in the force, to see if they held any information about me. I will seek this from them as well.

It is correct you can investigate a (fabricated) crime against [Angela], as that is what police do; however, the acquisition of my email address from information rights is not lawful, as (1). There is no public interest (as now confirmed by the CPS) and (2), the information rights have no lawful right to disclose it as that was not the purpose I provided it, or the purpose they handled it.

Neil, I believe you are lying to protect the data controller, this is increasingly common in the police and that is of public interest. You cannot be trusted. When found lying, you can never be trusted with the truth. I do hope you bring charges against [Angela] as you will be called to give evidence, and your credibility will be raised to the court ?

A wise man once told me, It is far more difficult to maintain a lie than the truth.

This matter will pursue to civil proceedings, so I will await your statement of truth and the evidence from information rights to support it, time and date stamped.



For the record, the SAR response from the Data Compliance did not provide any of the information that DC Neil Patrick has, under caution, stated existed, that being, the communication from the information rights officers to him (about Mr Ponting) or his communication back to them (about Mr Ponting)…

When the police openly lie, how the hell can we trust them!

What do you think?   Please comment below.


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.