By Gabriel Princewill-
Media bosses in the Uk had expressed concern that the police were subtly seeking to increase their flexibility not to name suspects by changing their guidance through the proposal that suspects charged by the police “can be named” by forces instead of the current guidance which states that suspects “should be named, unless there is an exceptional and legitimate policing purpose for not doing so or reporting restrictions apply”.
The College of Policing today said it does not “want to do anything that would undermine open justice” after proposals for its media relations guidance to provide flexibility over when to identify suspects charged with an offence.
This proposals appeared to be seeking to protect some of their offending colleagues by determining when transgressors can be named.
At the moment, police officers charged with a criminal offence are readily named, though their photograph is never released to the press, except if photographed when turning up at court.
It is standard practise for photographs of charged officers are released at the point of sentencing.
Police guidelines state that photographs of police officers charged with an offence is generally only released when they are sentenced, and even then it depends how serious the sentence is. This is generally to protect them from potential attack from unscrupulous.
Other proposed changes to the college’s APP (Authorised Professional Practice) on Media Relations include recommending to forces that charging information is only released “where the crime is of a serious nature such as rape or murder”, or where the incident has already been reported in the media or on social media sites.
The News Media Association (NMA) said the proposed changes “could weaken open justice”.
NMA chief executive Owen Meredith said: “We are deeply concerned by these proposed changes which would weaken the flow of information from police forces to the general public, undermining the public right to know.
“Professional guidance must create a framework to help and support police officers in achieving a good relationship with the media, rather than erecting new barriers that entrench secrecy.
“We urge the College of Policing to work with publishers and editors through constructive consultation to establish guidance which enables the public to fully see and understand the important work of our police forces.”
The Society of Editors which has reviewed the proposed changes alongside the Crime Reporters Association (CRA), said any amendments to the guidelines for all forces in England and Wales, should “strengthen” rather than “restrict” the public’s right to know.
Society of Editors executive director Dawn Alford said: “The Society is deeply concerned that proposals contained within the revised guidance look set to place unprecedented restrictions upon the flow of information provided by the police to journalists.
“Misplaced concerns around data protection and defendants’ privacy rights are being used as a basis to allow forces to choose which criminal charges they confirm to the media and non-custodial penalties such as fines, out of court disposals and cautions, could become non-verifiable with press officers.
“A successful working relationship between the police and the media remains essential to policing legitimacy in the UK and the Society remains in dialogue with the College of Policing to reverse these draconian proposals and strengthen, rather than restrict, the public’s right to know.”
The college said the guidance requires updating following the introduction of new data protection legislation, but said “no decision to introduce these changes has been made at this time or will be made without consultation”.
It stressed that “an open, transparent, and professional working relationship between the police service and the media is essential”.
The College of Policing said working with the media to communicate to the public can help solve crimes, bring offenders to justice and keep communities safe. It can also give the public insight into what the police are doing and why they are doing it.
The context in which the media and police engage with each other continues to change quickly as new technologies, crimes and threats emerge, it added.
Chief Constable Andy Marsh, College of Policing chief executive officer, said: “An open, transparent, and professional working relationship between the police service and the media is essential to public trust.
“Our guidance to police forces is clear that at the point an individual is charged with a crime, there should be no reasonable expectation of privacy. We believe this is strongly in the public interest and compatible with data protection law.”
The College of Policing held a meeting with the ICO on Friday to understand its position and outline the importance of transparency, open justice and the ability of the media to get the information they need to do their important job.
The college said it will maintain the current position that “those charged with an offence – including those who receive a summons to court – should be named, unless there is an exceptional and legitimate policing purpose for not doing so or reporting restrictions apply”.
In a letter to the to the CRA, the Society of Editors and NMA, college head of communications Matt Peck said: “An open, transparent, and professional working relationship between the police service and the media is essential.
“Our guidance to police forces in this area upholds these principles and has not currently changed.
“The ICO has proposed amendments to take account of evolving data protection law. In our discussions with the ICO, we have outlined the importance of the emphasis placed within the guidance on openness and transparency, while acknowledging their representations regarding data protection and the law.
“In sharing these proposals at an early state, we have been seeking formal feedback to consult and develop a way forward working with you, forces and the ICO. We welcome your input and support as we undertake this process. We understand the depth of feeling on these issues and the public interest in getting any changes to the guidance right.”
He added: “I want to reiterate to you that no decision to introduce these changes has been made at this time or will be made without consultation. In the meantime, our guidance to police forces remains as set out on our website.
“I would be grateful for any assistance you can provide in reassuring colleagues on our position and the steps we are taking regarding any changes.
“We look forward to continuing to work with you, and please don’t hesitate to get in touch directly if you, or any colleague, would like to discuss this further.”
The College Of Policing
The college of policing said that information about an arrest should be released proactively if it is made following a high-profile investigation, is of particular public interest due to the seriousness or circumstances of the alleged offence, or involves a chief officer
Media lines should be proactively released if officers are charged in relation to off-duty activities that involve serious criminality (sexual offences, serious assaults, fraud or corruption), or matters that could seriously damage the reputation of the police service or call its integrity into question.
The arrest should be released proactively if it is made following a high-profile investigation, is of particular public interest due to the seriousness or circumstances of the alleged offence, or involves a chief officer.
The details released in relation to officers of chief officer rank, including whether the officer will be identified, should be decided on a case-by-case basis, balancing the particular circumstances of the case along with the individual’s rights, the public interest, and the organisational need for transparency and openness.
If officers are charged with or summonsed for a criminal offence committed on duty, their details should be proactively released.
Media lines should be proactively released if officers are charged in relation to off-duty activities that involve serious criminality (sexual offences, serious assaults, fraud or corruption), or matters that could seriously damage the reputation of the police service or call its integrity into question.