.png)
1 day ago
4
A government plan to give anonymity to firearms officers in England and Wales facing criminal charges will damage public confidence in policing and fuel online misinformation, a coalition of editors, journalists and media lawyers have said.
In a letter to the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, seen by the Guardian, the group warned the measure would make officers empowered to use lethal force less accountable than ordinary members of the public.
It said the change would “ride roughshod over the principles of open justice” and significantly dent the media’s ability to report on potential criminal activity by officers. It also raised concerns about the dilution of police accountability more generally.
It comes after the case of Martyn Blake, the Metropolitan police armed officer cleared of murdering Chris Kaba. He is facing a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct, where he could face the sack for using excessive force.
The decision to prosecute Blake caused anger within the police, who argued officers placed in highly unusual circumstances were being treated unfairly. The government backed anonymity for firearms officers in court as part of the crime and policing bill, due to be scrutinised in the House of Lords this week.
However, senior media figures are worried about the implications of the changes, under which armed officers charged with an offence would no longer be named right up until their conviction.
They fear a possible wider erosion of robust scrutiny of the police. They point to high-profile cases such as the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and the murder of Sarah Everard by Wayne Couzens, then a parliamentary and diplomatic protection officer.
The joint letter, signed by representatives of groups including the Society of Editors, the News Media Association, the Crime Reporters Association and Media Lawyers Association, calls on the home secretary to think again.
“If brought into force, the measure would ride roughshod over the principles of open justice which underpin public confidence in our policing and judicial system,” they say. “The ability of media to report on criminal proceedings involving firearms officers would be severely impeded, leaving a vacuum which would be filled by misinformation and rumour.
“We stress the importance of public interest journalism in underpinning transparency which is essential to public understanding and accountability.”
It argues that the courts already have the power to give anonymity to defendants when that is deemed necessary. Lawyers working for major media outlets have also claimed it contradicts human rights laws, relating to the need for public hearings and the media’s right “to impart, and the public to receive, information about judicial proceedings”.
“There is no need for an unprecedented blanket presumption of anonymity in law,” the letter says. “We fear that the provision could open the door to secrecy in other areas of police disciplinary proceedings, leading to the emergence of secret hearings and closed courts.
“The measure was brought forward as part of a package of reforms designed to rebuild public trust in policing. Granting a sweeping presumption of anonymity to firearms officers facing criminal proceedings will do the exact opposite. For the sake of transparency, public trust, and open justice, we urge you to reconsider this harmful and retrograde measure.”
The Home Office argues that armed police officers are engaged in an inherently “unique and dangerous” job and face reprisals from criminals and organised crime gangs, should their identities be revealed in court proceedings.
“There will continue to be judicial discretion to allow for identifying details to be released and for reporting restrictions to be lifted,” the government has previously said. “In deciding whether to do so, the court should consider the facts of each individual case and whether it would be in the interests of justice.”
