Invisible woman
Hertsfordshire Police
What labels am I challenging?
Hertfordshire Police: “Offender”, “Trespasser”, “Complainant”
My dispute with Hertfordshire Police began on 26 August 2025, outside the Visitor Centre at Northwood Headquarters.
I had attended as a solicitor, acting under a Power of Attorney to arrange the recovery of my former partner's documents and belongings. After being refused entry, I left the Visitor Centre and waited on a bench immediately outside while trying to arrange an alternative way of completing that task.
RAF Police required me to leave the area. I asked for the authority and legal basis for that instruction. They called Hertfordshire Police, whose officers warned that I could be arrested if I did not leave. I complied. I was not arrested.
The subsequent dispute concerns what that encounter became in official accounts: how an access refusal acquired a criminal character, what information civilian police received about me, and why I have been unable to inspect and challenge the resulting records.
“Offender”: a criminal conclusion without an identified offence
On 8 September 2025, the Hertfordshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Complaint Resolution Team stated:
“Your non-compliance meant a criminal offence had taken place.”
That statement appeared in the complaint outcome under reference CRT/H/01060/2025. It was an administrative conclusion about alleged criminal conduct, not a conviction.
My objection is precise. Refusing someone access to a military establishment does not, by itself, establish a criminal offence. To reach that conclusion, it is necessary to identify the offence, its legal elements, the relevant conduct and the evidence supporting it.
References to national security or the sensitivity of a military site do not supply that analysis. Nor are an access restriction, trespass, a criminal offence and a police power to require departure interchangeable concepts.
I asked which offence I had supposedly committed, what power the officers exercised, and what evidence supported the conclusion. Those questions remained unresolved through the complaint process. On 7 October 2026, the OPCC expressly confirmed that its review had not independently determined the identity or elements of an offence, the operative police power, or the relevant geographical scope. Its stated task had been to assess whether the handling of my complaint was reasonable and proportionate.
The criminal conclusion survived. Its foundations remained untested by that review.
“Trespasser”: a description with legal consequences
Hertfordshire Police’s Professional Standards account identified incident ISR HC-26082025-0430 and reproduced the call description:
“Person refusing to leave prohibited space.”
Review Wye, the Service Police Complaints Commissioner’s review of RAF Police conduct, subsequently described me as a “trespasser” (§106). It concluded that the bench was within the protected site and that my professional capacity did not confer permission to remain.
That is an identifiable institutional position. It still leaves questions about what Hertfordshire Police actually received, recorded and relied upon.
Review Wye recorded that, before the civilian officers approached me, RAF Police had briefed them that my partner and I were “under investigation”, that Northwood was a prohibited place under the National Security Act 2023, and that there were concerns about the group attempting to gain access dishonestly (§37(xliii)).
These propositions extend beyond a simple refusal of visitor access. They introduce investigation status, suspected dishonesty and a national-security context.
Yet the Ministry of Defence subsequently pleaded that no UK decision-maker had ever determined that I posed a threat to national security (Summary Grounds of Resistance, 13 November 2025, §14). That does not prove that every police record is inaccurate. It does make accurate attribution and qualification essential.
What did “under investigation” mean?
Did it refer to me personally, to my partner, or to an inquiry elsewhere?
Was a third-party allegation recorded as an allegation, or treated as established fact?
What, if anything, remains available for operational use?
Review Wye did not determine those questions about Hertfordshire Police’s records. My data-protection claim seeks the information needed to examine them.
“Complainant”: a procedure that did not answer the underlying questions
I complained about the police encounter on 27 August 2025. “Complainant” accurately describes that procedural role. The problem is what happened to the substance of my questions once they entered the complaint system.
I sought explanations through complaints and review. I requested my personal data on 30 January 2026. I approached the ICO and, in June, expressly requested correction, qualification or restriction of disputed information.
The requests concerned identifiable material: incident records, body-worn video, communications, sources and recipients. I also asked the police to preserve the original records and amendment history. I wanted to establish what had happened and correct any misleading account while retaining the evidence.
The information-rights process did not resolve that problem. My June requests moved between departments without the substantive determination I sought. On 10 August 2026—192 days after my subject access request—Hertfordshire Police refused access on national-security grounds. The refusal cited Schedule 11, paragraph 5 of the Data Protection Act 2018 as “National Security and Defence”; my amended claim challenges that citation and requires the force to establish the legal basis for withholding.
The result was a circular process: the complaint route pointed towards information rights, while the information-rights route withheld the material necessary to test the complaint outcome.
Why we are now in court
My claim against the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary is before Romford County Court, case N02RM064.
It concerns access to personal data and the failure to determine my requests for rectification and restriction. It does not ask the court to assume, without the underlying records, that every disputed description is false.
I seek disclosure of the information to which I am legally entitled, an examination of any exemption relied upon, and substantive decisions about whether disputed data require correction, qualification or restricted use. Where withholding must be assessed without immediate disclosure to me, my claim also seeks examination of the material by the court.
The distinction matters. An accurate historical record that somebody made an allegation may properly be preserved. An allegation presented as verified fact, without its source or disputed status, raises a different issue.
For a practising solicitor, uncertainty about police information suggesting criminal conduct, dishonesty or investigation has practical and professional significance. I need to establish what exists before I can meaningfully challenge how it is used.
The other side of the equation
Alongside that civil claim, I have asked Hertfordshire Police to investigate alleged offences against me, renewing my earlier report in light of further information. That is a separate process. The allegations require investigation; their submission does not establish that an offence occurred.
It nevertheless creates an instructive situation. The same force is being asked to explain the information through which I acquired a criminalising description and to assess evidence I have supplied as a person reporting alleged wrongdoing.
I am watching how it handles both responsibilities with considerable interest.
The documents are organised. The questions are precise. The popcorn is ready.
Documentary references: Review Wye, 30 April 2026, §37(xliii) and §106; Ministry of Defence Summary Grounds of Resistance, 13 November 2025, §14; Amended Particulars of Claim, 10 August 2026, §§10–24, 25–59, 93–95 and 108–114; OPCC correspondence, 7 October 2026. The Particulars of Claim set out my pleaded case; they are not judicial findings.
Hertfordshire Police: “Offender”, “Trespasser”, “Complainant”
My dispute with Hertfordshire Police began on 26 August 2025, outside the Visitor Centre at Northwood Headquarters.
I had attended as a solicitor, acting under a Power of Attorney to arrange the recovery of my former partner's documents and belongings. After being refused entry, I left the Visitor Centre and waited on a bench immediately outside while trying to arrange an alternative way of completing that task.
RAF Police required me to leave the area. I asked for the authority and legal basis for that instruction. They called Hertfordshire Police, whose officers warned that I could be arrested if I did not leave. I complied. I was not arrested.
The subsequent dispute concerns what that encounter became in official accounts: how an access refusal acquired a criminal character, what information civilian police received about me, and why I have been unable to inspect and challenge the resulting records.
“Offender”: a criminal conclusion without an identified offence
On 8 September 2025, the Hertfordshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Complaint Resolution Team stated:
“Your non-compliance meant a criminal offence had taken place.”
That statement appeared in the complaint outcome under reference CRT/H/01060/2025. It was an administrative conclusion about alleged criminal conduct, not a conviction.
My objection is precise. Refusing someone access to a military establishment does not, by itself, establish a criminal offence. To reach that conclusion, it is necessary to identify the offence, its legal elements, the relevant conduct and the evidence supporting it.
References to national security or the sensitivity of a military site do not supply that analysis. Nor are an access restriction, trespass, a criminal offence and a police power to require departure interchangeable concepts.
I asked which offence I had supposedly committed, what power the officers exercised, and what evidence supported the conclusion. Those questions remained unresolved through the complaint process. On 7 October 2026, the OPCC expressly confirmed that its review had not independently determined the identity or elements of an offence, the operative police power, or the relevant geographical scope. Its stated task had been to assess whether the handling of my complaint was reasonable and proportionate.
The criminal conclusion survived. Its foundations remained untested by that review.
“Trespasser”: a description with legal consequences
Hertfordshire Police’s Professional Standards account identified incident ISR HC-26082025-0430 and reproduced the call description:
“Person refusing to leave prohibited space.”
Review Wye, the Service Police Complaints Commissioner’s review of RAF Police conduct, subsequently described me as a “trespasser” (§106). It concluded that the bench was within the protected site and that my professional capacity did not confer permission to remain.
That is an identifiable institutional position. It still leaves questions about what Hertfordshire Police actually received, recorded and relied upon.
Review Wye recorded that, before the civilian officers approached me, RAF Police had briefed them that my partner and I were “under investigation”, that Northwood was a prohibited place under the National Security Act 2023, and that there were concerns about the group attempting to gain access dishonestly (§37(xliii)).
These propositions extend beyond a simple refusal of visitor access. They introduce investigation status, suspected dishonesty and a national-security context.
Yet the Ministry of Defence subsequently pleaded that no UK decision-maker had ever determined that I posed a threat to national security (Summary Grounds of Resistance, 13 November 2025, §14). That does not prove that every police record is inaccurate. It does make accurate attribution and qualification essential.
What did “under investigation” mean?
Did it refer to me personally, to my partner, or to an inquiry elsewhere?
Was a third-party allegation recorded as an allegation, or treated as established fact?
What, if anything, remains available for operational use?
Review Wye did not determine those questions about Hertfordshire Police’s records. My data-protection claim seeks the information needed to examine them.
“Complainant”: a procedure that did not answer the underlying questions
I complained about the police encounter on 27 August 2025. “Complainant” accurately describes that procedural role. The problem is what happened to the substance of my questions once they entered the complaint system.
I sought explanations through complaints and review. I requested my personal data on 30 January 2026. I approached the ICO and, in June, expressly requested correction, qualification or restriction of disputed information.
The requests concerned identifiable material: incident records, body-worn video, communications, sources and recipients. I also asked the police to preserve the original records and amendment history. I wanted to establish what had happened and correct any misleading account while retaining the evidence.
The information-rights process did not resolve that problem. My June requests moved between departments without the substantive determination I sought. On 10 August 2026—192 days after my subject access request—Hertfordshire Police refused access on national-security grounds. The refusal cited Schedule 11, paragraph 5 of the Data Protection Act 2018 as “National Security and Defence”; my amended claim challenges that citation and requires the force to establish the legal basis for withholding.
The result was a circular process: the complaint route pointed towards information rights, while the information-rights route withheld the material necessary to test the complaint outcome.
Why we are now in court
My claim against the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary is before Romford County Court, case N02RM064.
It concerns access to personal data and the failure to determine my requests for rectification and restriction. It does not ask the court to assume, without the underlying records, that every disputed description is false.
I seek disclosure of the information to which I am legally entitled, an examination of any exemption relied upon, and substantive decisions about whether disputed data require correction, qualification or restricted use. Where withholding must be assessed without immediate disclosure to me, my claim also seeks examination of the material by the court.
The distinction matters. An accurate historical record that somebody made an allegation may properly be preserved. An allegation presented as verified fact, without its source or disputed status, raises a different issue.
For a practising solicitor, uncertainty about police information suggesting criminal conduct, dishonesty or investigation has practical and professional significance. I need to establish what exists before I can meaningfully challenge how it is used.
The other side of the equation
Alongside that civil claim, I have asked Hertfordshire Police to investigate alleged offences against me, renewing my earlier report in light of further information. That is a separate process. The allegations require investigation; their submission does not establish that an offence occurred.
It nevertheless creates an instructive situation. The same force is being asked to explain the information through which I acquired a criminalising description and to assess evidence I have supplied as a person reporting alleged wrongdoing.
I am watching how it handles both responsibilities with considerable interest.
The documents are organised. The questions are precise. The popcorn is ready.
Documentary references: Review Wye, 30 April 2026, §37(xliii) and §106; Ministry of Defence Summary Grounds of Resistance, 13 November 2025, §14; Amended Particulars of Claim, 10 August 2026, §§10–24, 25–59, 93–95 and 108–114; OPCC correspondence, 7 October 2026. The Particulars of Claim set out my pleaded case; they are not judicial findings.
