What impact will a statutory presumption of anonymity have on police accountability?
The Government’s Crime and Policing Bill 2025 is due to pass through its second reading within the House of Lords on 16 October 2025. The bill’s purpose is to ‘increase public confidence in policing and the wider criminal justice system’. But will this be achieved?
One of the measures in the bill, originally announced by the Home Secretary last October, is to introduce a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers up until the point of conviction, if they are charged with a criminal offence after discharging their firearm in the course of official duties.
What is the current legal position?
The general rule in criminal proceedings is that defendants, including police officers, are not automatically entitled to anonymity. This reflects the fundamental tenet of open justice, which requires that justice should not only be done, but should undoubtedly be seen to be done.
In effect, the starting point is that court proceedings occur in the open. Therefore, everything said in court is reportable in the public domain.
However, the Court may impose reporting restrictions in exceptional cases to prevent prejudice or ensure safety where the disclosure of the identity would give rise to a real and immediate risk to life; this is a discretionary decision for the courts. Similarly, the Court can withhold identifying details from the public if it is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and to protect the interests of that person.
What do the new measures entail?
The announcement of the Government’s plan to introduce these measures relating to anonymity for firearms officers followed the trial of Sergeant Martyn Blake. Sergeant Blake was acquitted in October 2024 of murdering Chris Kaba after a shooting in London in 2022.
Under the proposed new law, authorised firearms officers charged with a criminal offence will receive a statutory presumption of anonymity. This would apply when the charge stems from the officer discharging a conventional round from their ‘lethal barreled weapon’, during official duties. This new rule will reverse the current legal starting point, which presumes the officer's name will be made public.
The new Clause 91 stipulates that anonymity for the officer will be the starting point, unless withholding their name, address and date of birth from the public in court proceedings would be contrary to the interests of justice. The court will have to impose reporting restrictions (i.e. prohibition on publication of anything likely to lead to the officer’s identification), unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. However, any such order by the court will cease to have effect if the officer is convicted of the offence, and the reporting restrictions will cease to have effect at the time the officer is sentenced.
The new Clause 92 will grant the courts statutory authority to extend anonymity measures and reporting restrictions beyond sentencing, whilst the firearms officer appeals the conviction itself (although notably not for an appeal of the sentence).
Why is this proposed legal reform a concern?
This reform is the most recent in a long history of attempts to increase protections afforded to police officers and degrade transparency for the existing processes which hold state agents to account.
Prosecutions of firearms officers are extremely rare. There have been 83 deaths following police shootings in England & Wales since 1990; only four have resulted in prosecutions and one of these in a successful conviction following the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005 (but notably this was only against the Metropolitan Police Service as an entity rather than an individual officer). If their right to anonymity is to be presumed, the bereaved family would be denied the right to even know the name of the person who injured or killed their loved one, which could leave them with a deep feeling of injustice.
The Government maintains that such measures would foster officers’ confidence in performing high-risk duties and ensure recruitment and retention in firearms roles, as these officers would in effect be shielded from public exposure (unless convicted).
However, open justice is an established principle of our justice system. The implications of these proposed measures are deeply disconcerting – they are contrary to the importance of the public’s access to information about cases involving police use of force. The changes granting anonymity to these officers would render them subject to less scrutiny than ordinary members of the public accused of committing crimes.
The proposals pose grave harm to public interest journalism. Robust media reporting plays as important role in sufficiently examining a person’s actions and exploring any systemic issues. As 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.”
The criminal courts are already permitted to grant defendant’s anonymity where necessary, on a case-by-case basis. This approach is more proportionate and avoids the need to grant firearms officers special status.
The human rights team at Saunders specialise in holding police officers to account for their actions. If you would like more information please call us on 020 7632 4300 or Make an enquiry and we will contact you.