The government’s plan to give automatic anonymity to firearms officers on trial following a shooting is an attack on press freedom that will harm public trust, a cross-party group of peers has warned.
Provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill, currently in the House of Lords, will grant a presumption of anonymity to firearms officers facing criminal charges over the use of their weapon. Their identity would be kept secret throughout trial and only lifted if they are convicted.
Lord Pannick, one of the UK’s leading barristers, and Lord Black of Brentwood, chair of the News Media Association, have tabled an amendment to remove the provisions from the Bill which was debated yesterday. They warn that blanket anonymity threatens the principle of open justice and risks eroding confidence in police accountability.
Lord Pannick, a crossbench peer and practicing barrister, said: “This provision is unnecessary and represents a disproportionate interference with press freedom. Judges already have the power to grant anonymity where there is clear evidence of a real and immediate risk to an officer or their family, with proper safeguards for fairness and review.
“Introducing automatic anonymity undermines the principle of open justice and risks eroding confidence in our legal system."
Lord Black of Brentwood, a Conservative peer, said: “Automatic anonymity undermines public trust, limits scrutiny, and creates a chilling effect on public interest reporting.
“In cases involving state agents empowered to use lethal force transparency is paramount - we should be strengthening open justice, not weakening it. Public confidence in accountability depends on the press being able to report freely and fairly.”
Baroness Kennedy, president of JUSTICE, also supports the amendment. The Labour peer added: "At a time when public trust in policing is fragile, it’s essential that trials involving use of force are transparent. Confidence in accountability depends on it.
“Blanket anonymity would shroud cases of the highest public interest in secrecy, replacing accurate reporting with rumour and misinformation. Judges already have the power to grant anonymity to officers facing genuine threats. This is an unnecessary and unjustified attack on open justice and press freedom."
Baroness Cash, a Conservative peer and barrister specialising in freedom of expression work, argued: “As well as suppressing public interest journalism, we must recognise that anonymity risks suppressing vital evidence.
“Members of the public often do not realise they hold relevant information until they see a defendant identified in media reports. Automatic anonymity will make it harder for the truth to come to light, and in the most serious cases involving the use of lethal force, that is simply unacceptable.”
Courts already have the power to grant anonymity to defendants if they or their family are genuinely at risk of harm, taking into account the additional threats police officers might face. This case-by-case approach ensures the balance between safety and open justice is maintained. Transparent accountability is particularly important in the current climate, as trust in policing has fallen to record lows following a series of high-profile scandals, including the murder of Sarah Everard, along with recent findings of institutional racism and misogyny.
The move comes at a time when police are publicising more detail about suspects earlier on in the legal process, in a bid to stop the spread of misinformation. Under guidance introduced in August, police forces are now encouraged to disclose the ethnicity and nationality of suspects in high-profile cases as soon as they are charged. Granting total anonymity to firearms officers while the public see their privacy reduced could fuel accusations of double standards.
A sweeping presumption of anonymity could also prevent vital evidence from coming to light, hampering investigations. Public appeals for information would be less effective, as people who encountered an officer facing charges would have no way of knowing their experience was relevant to an ongoing case. This could increase the risk of miscarriages of justice.
Introducing a presumption of anonymity would open the door to its extension into other areas of police disciplinary proceedings, campaigners have warned, paving the way for secret hearings and closed courts.
Keep up-to-date with publishing news: sign up here for InPubWeekly, our free weekly e-newsletter.
