Peers warn against anonymity for firearms officers on trial

What’s happening

• The Crime and Policing Bill, now in the House of Lords, proposes that firearms officers charged over shootings would have their identities kept secret during trial unless convicted.
• A cross-party group of legal and media experts, including Lord Pannick, Lord Black, Baroness Kennedy, and Baroness Cash, are backing an amendment to remove these provisions.

Why it matters

• Open justice at risk: Peers argue that blanket anonymity undermines the principle of open justice and could erode confidence in police accountability.
• Press freedom threatened: Lord Pannick and Lord Black warn that the move would limit scrutiny and chill public interest reporting. They stress that transparency is vital when state agents are empowered to use lethal force.
• Existing safeguards: Judges already have powers to grant anonymity to officers facing real threats, with proper checks in place.
• Evidence suppression: Baroness Cash notes that anonymity could prevent witnesses from coming forward, as people often realise they have relevant information only after seeing a defendant named in the media.

Context

• Trust in policing is at a low following scandals such as the murder of Sarah Everard and findings of institutional racism and misogyny.
• Police are now encouraged to release more information about suspects to combat misinformation, making the proposed secrecy for firearms officers appear inconsistent.

Wider concerns

• Campaigners warn that this could set a precedent for more secretive police disciplinary hearings and closed courts.
• Press freedom groups including the News Media Association, JUSTICE, and Inquest support the amendment to remove the anonymity clauses.

The House of Lords will debate the amendments today.