Anonymity for Criminal Suspects

Criminal lawyers are always aware of our clients’ concerns about adverse publicity during a criminal investigation, prior to charge. Investigations can last many months, even years, only to result in no charges being brought. Maintaining anonymity during that period is often a priority, second only to defending the allegations. In Bloomberg v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, the Supreme Court confirmed that as a “legitimate starting point” a person under criminal investigation has, prior to charge, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the investigation. However in any given case it is not certain as a matter of law that the ‘starting point’ is the ‘end point’.

For that and other reasons, there remains pressure to introduce clear statutory restrictions against identifying criminal suspects before charge. This is progressing piecemeal. In 2023 the Northern Ireland Assembly legislated to grant anonymity to sexual offences suspects prior to charge – the UK government having rejected a statutory amendment to similar effect in 2016. The UK government is currently working to grant anonymity to police firearms officers in certain circumstances until conviction or unsuccessful conclusion of their appeal (sections 134 to 137 of the draft Crime and Policing Bill). The latter was prompted by Sergeant Martyn Blake failing to maintain his anonymity in a murder trial for which he was ultimately acquitted.

The latest proposal is the ‘Anonymity of Suspects Bill’ which, it should be noted, is a Private Members’ Bill brought by Christopher Chope MP, a backbench member of the Conservative Party. The Bill is therefore likely to fall by the wayside, as was the fate of similar Private Members’ Bills in 2010, 2019 and 2022.

The Bill and the topic more broadly nonetheless warrant close attention because suspect anonymity is not merely the quixotic project of a small number of grandees and celebrities. The issue will recur with future high-profile controversies. This government – less media-friendly than its predecessors – is more likely to move on the issue than any other.

If that is right, then it is worth concluding with a few brief cautionary notes about suspect anonymity.

First, little thought has been given to the interaction between the law of contempt, which applies from the point of arrest, and statutory suspect anonymity. How can prejudicial comment about a person be restricted if no one knows that person is a suspect?

Second, for suspects who are high-profile and/or subject to professional regulation, how does anonymity bear on the various obligations of organisations, regulators and tribunals? For example, how are interim suspensions to work if the suspension notice, even in a redacted form, is likely to facilitate jigsaw identification of the suspect?

Third, in an era when social media can rapidly amplify false rumours, the public interest will sometimes lie in providing some identifying details of the suspect. The riots that followed fatal stabbings in Southport in July last year have been attributed to false rumours concerning the origins of the perpetrator which gathered steam in the absence of official information for many hours. The police appear to have learned from that experience, for example in the recent Liverpool FC parade incident, the age and ethnicity of the individual who has since been charged was provided within two hours. It is possible to conceive of circumstances where the public interest requires more granular information about a suspect to be provided swiftly.