Anonymity for firearms officers will harm public confidence, Shabana Mahmood told | Police
The government’s plan to grant anonymity to firearms officers facing criminal charges in England and Wales will damage public confidence in policing and fuel misinformation online, a coalition of editors, journalists and media lawyers said.
In a letter to home secretary Shabana Mahmood seen by the Guardian, the group warned that the measure would make officers with the power to use lethal force less accountable than ordinary members of the public.
He said the change would “disregard the principles of open justice” and significantly harm the media’s ability to report on officers’ potential criminal activity. This has also raised concerns about declining police accountability generally.
It comes after Metropolitan police officer Martyn Blake was cleared of murdering Chris Kaba. He faces a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct and could be fired for using excessive force.
The decision to prosecute Blake caused outrage within the police; police argued that officers deployed under highly unusual circumstances were not treated fairly. The government has backed the anonymity of firearms officers in court as part of a crime and policing bill to be considered in the House of Lords this week.
But senior figures in the media are concerned about the consequences of the changes, which will see armed officers accused of a crime no longer be named until their conviction.
They fear a wider erosion of tight control over the police. They point to high-profile cases such as the murder 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 the Media Lawyers Association, calls on the home secretary to reconsider.
“If enacted, the measure would breach the principles of open justice that underpin public confidence in our police and judicial system,” they say. “The media’s ability to report on criminal proceedings involving firearms officers will be severely hampered, leaving a vacuum to be filled with misinformation and rumours.
“We emphasize the importance of public interest journalism in promoting the transparency necessary for public understanding and accountability.”
It is argued that courts already have the power to grant anonymity to defendants when deemed necessary. Lawyers working for major media organizations also argued that this conflicted with human rights laws regarding the requirement for public hearings and the media’s right to “report and receive public information about judicial proceedings.”
“There is no need for a comprehensive presumption of anonymity unprecedented in law,” the letter states. “We fear that this 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 has been put forward as part of a package of reforms designed to rebuild public confidence in policing. Giving firearms officers facing criminal prosecution a blanket presumption of anonymity will do the exact opposite. In the interest of transparency, public trust and open justice, we urge you to reconsider this harmful and regressive measure.”
The Home Office argues that armed police officers are engaged in an inherently “unique and dangerous” job and will face reprisals from criminals and organized crime gangs if their identities are revealed in court proceedings.
“The judiciary will continue to have discretion to allow the disclosure of identity details and the removal of reporting restrictions,” the government said in a previous statement. “In deciding whether to do so, the court must consider the facts of each case and whether it would be in the interests of justice.”
