We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

The College of Policing has U-turned on a proposed change to guidance that would have protected the privacy of people charged with some crimes. Following fierce backlash and fears over open justice, the college stated people charged with a crime should have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Its statement came after media bosses raised concerns over the proposed changes which suggested forces across England and Wales no longer “should” name those charged with crimes including indecent exposure, domestic violence or child sexual abuse, instead advising that individuals “can be named”.

Chief Constable Andy Marsh, College of Policing CEO, said on Friday: “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 said on Thursday that amendments to the guidance had been proposed by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to take account of evolving data protection law.

On Friday, the college held a meeting with the ICO 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 job.

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”.

The new guidance suggested that suspects are named only “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.

This led to fears that individual police forces could choose whether or not to name suspects for a wide range of crimes such as arson, grievous bodily harm and robbery.

Crime reporters also raised concerns that new guidelines could make it much harder for journalists to cover criminal cases because reporters need a defendant’s name to find details of their first court appearance.

Source: Read Full Article