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.

However, once a person is charged with a criminal offence, their privacy rights are lessened because the open justice principle prevails and the person can be named and identified unless reporting restrictions are in place. 

Depending on the reporting of the charge, defamation claims remain viable and reporting must avoid creating a serious risk of prejudicing ongoing proceedings or the suspect’s right to a fair trial. 

If fuller and earlier disclosures become standard for certain offences or cases, growing pressure could result in similar transparency in other high-profile cases. However, this may also risk infringing privacy and data rights, increase the risk of misidentification and defamation, or prejudice a fair trial – especially when multiple suspects are involved or investigations are ongoing.

Indeed, the human cost of being wrongly or prematurely identified – especially in connection with serious crimes – can be devastating, even if innocence is later established.

Misinformation and the future

The growing role of social media in shaping public reaction creates pressure for faster and fuller police communication. But shaping strategy based on potential online backlash is problematic.

While the Online Safety Act 2023 introduces offences for false information and duties for platforms to remove harmful content, the practical impact remains uncertain. Ofcom has established an advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation which may help in the long term, but current challenges persist.

In the Liverpool FC trophy parade incident, the details released about the suspect may have quelled previous social media rumours, but the police could face similar dilemmas in future high-profile cases. A precedent may have been set, raising concerns about accusations of cover-ups or public backlash depending on what is revealed.

These issues are evident in the alleged rape of a 12-year-old in Warwickshire, with Reform UK leader Nigel Farage accusing police of a “cover-up” after they refused to confirm whether the suspects were asylum seekers, and the party’s Warwickshire County Council leader warning that their approach risked “disorder breaking out on the streets.”

Increased police transparency might calm public fears in certain cases in the short term, but it risks compromising fundamental legal protections. Striking the right balance between public reassurance and individual rights remains crucial.