Striking the balance between police transparency and privacy

In August, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said guidance for police on sharing the immigration status and ethnicity of crime suspects “needs to change” after calls were made for more information about the alleged rape of a 12-year-old in Warwickshire. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has since confirmed that police will be encouraged to disclose the ethnicity and nationality of suspects charged in high-profile and sensitive investigations under new guidance.

Those developments follow mounting political scrutiny over how much information police should release and when.

Indeed, following the murder of three children in Southport in August 2024, the police provided minimal details, citing legal advice to avoid prejudicing any future trial. The police’s silence was criticised for fuelling disinformation and unrest, with Jonathan Hall KC, the UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, arguing that their response was inadequate while urging greater transparency in future cases.

Later, following the Liverpool FC trophy parade in May 2025, when a car drove through a section of the crowd injuring more than 100 people, police took a more proactive stance, swiftly disclosing the suspect’s ethnicity and nationality to counter online speculation — suggesting a possible shift toward earlier disclosures in high-profile cases.

Balancing transparency and privacy

The Law Commission is currently reviewing the legal framework governing public communication and press reporting during criminal investigations. The police have sought greater flexibility to release more information and Jonathan Hall KC has proposed allowing earlier release of identifying details – such as name, age, nationality or photo ID – particularly in terrorism-related cases to help combat false narratives online. 

However, such disclosure risks undermining an individual’s privacy and rights to a fair trial. The current legal position is that a person ordinarily has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police investigation up to the point of charge. Only in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear policing purpose are names or identifying details released.

The principle that people are innocent until proven guilty underpins the approach. It also recognises the human characteristic to assume the worst, in that there is no smoke without fire and the damage and stigma that publicity of being suspected of an offence can have on an individual or business even after it has been decided that there is no case to answer.

Publication of identifying details such as an individual’s religion, race or ethnicity and immigration status is also private to that person and sensitive personal data which is protected more carefully. It may also allow them to be identified, such that a defamation claim could be possible.