Presumption of anonymity for firearms officers poses grave threat to public interest journalism, say NUJ and JUSTICE
The NUJ and law reform charity JUSTICE have written jointly to Yvette Cooper, UK home secretary, expressing deep concern over a proposed change in law granting anonymity to firearms officers subject to criminal proceedings following a shooting.
Both the NUJ and JUSTICE stress that this change poses grave harm to the principle of open justice. The letter underscores the importance of access to information and securing the public’s right to know the details of cases involving police use of force. Amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill granting anonymity to officers risk shrouding cases in secrecy, preventing sufficient examination of these cases as expected by the public. The changes would mean that firearms officers are subject to less scrutiny than ordinary members of the public accused of committing crimes.
Rigorous public scrutiny and the ability of journalists to report on cases involving firearms officers with transparency, must be recognised by the UK government as central to public interest journalism.
The NUJ and JUSTICE are calling on Cooper to demonstrate government's support for media freedom by listening to concerns and withdrawing the proposed provision.
Stephanie Needleman, JUSTICE legal director, said:
“Whoever we are – layperson or police officer – the law applies to us all and we must answer for our actions without special treatment. Moreover, trust in policing demands armed officers are held to the highest standards and scrutiny.
“This proposed anonymity would badly harm the ability of the public and press to properly examine criminal cases involving firearms officers. When lethal force is used in their name, the public has a right to know the details. To protect open justice and public confidence in policing, the government must scrap this proposal.”
Laura Davison, NUJ general secretary, said:
“Open justice is a crucial, established principle underpinning our justice system but proposals pursued now pose grave harm to public interest journalism. Scrutiny possible through reporting by journalists plays an important role, and without an urgent rethink, government risks a reversal of transparency measures valued by the public, who recognise a two-tiered approach with one rule for officers and another for the public is deeply flawed.”
We write to express our deep concern over the recent amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill introducing an effective presumption of anonymity for firearms officers subject to criminal proceedings following a shooting. The amendment would require the court to withhold the name of the officer accused and other identifying information from the public, and to impose reporting restrictions preventing the publication of anything likely to lead to their identification, unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice.
These provisions run counter to principles of open justice and will significantly limit the ability of the press to meaningfully report on such cases. They would also shield firearms officers accused of serious crimes from the scrutiny that ordinary members of the public accused of crimes face.
Open justice is a fundamental tenet of our legal system. It ensures the press and public can scrutinise cases going through the courts. This is vital for maintaining confidence in the system and is especially important in cases involving state agents. There is a clear public interest in serious criminal cases involving police officers to be subject to the most rigorous public scrutiny. A presumption of anonymity would fuel the perception that processes for holding police officers to account lack transparency.
The public has a right to know the circumstances in which allegations of serious criminal wrongdoing arise, especially when they concern those trusted to use lethal force. Robust media reporting plays a critical role in identifying systemic issues. It also reassures the public that officers accused of serious offenses are subject to the same treatment as other defendants; we are all equal before the law. By hampering the ability of the press and the public to properly examine criminal prosecutions involving firearms officers there is a real risk that this measure damages public confidence and trust in policing.
Finally, a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers is not necessary. There is no evidence that police officers are more likely to be subject to harm or retribution compared with defendants in other high profile or controversial cases. Moreover, criminal courts can already grant defendants anonymity where necessary. This case-by-case approach allows the courts to respond to specific risks posed to individual defendants. It is a more proportionate way of safeguarding defendants – including police officers – without unduly undermining public confidence, or open justice.
We urge you to withdraw this provision and give careful consideration to these serious concerns. In doing so, you would have our full support.
Yours sincerely, Stephanie Needleman, Legal Director, JUSTICE
Laura Davison, General Secretary, National Union of Journalists