The row over secret arrests deepened
last night as Britain’s data watchdog claimed that naming crime suspects
breaches their human rights.
Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, said there was no ‘pressing social need’ for the public to be told who was being held by the police.
He warned that identifying suspects risked them being denied a fair trial and would leave them exposed to ‘media intrusion into their private lives’.
His comments have been echoed
by senior judges and lawyers, including a barrister at the forefront of
the Hacked Off campaign to introduce state regulation of the press.
There are now fresh fears that police will press ahead with a draconian plan, recommended by Lord Justice Leveson in his landmark report, to keep secret the identities of people suspected of serious offences.
Under guidance being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers, revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week, forces across England and Wales would be banned from confirming the names of those they have arrested when talking to journalists.
The guarantee of anonymity has been
branded an attack on open justice that could allow criminals to keep
offending by preventing victims or witnesses coming forward with
evidence.
The Government’s own legal reform advisory body, the Law Commission, has said that reporters should be able to check names with police forces.
But in his strongly worded response, the Information Commissioner has claimed that a policy of identifying all suspects would breach the Data Protection Act, which concerns the handling of personal information, and Labour’s notorious Human Rights Act, long described as a criminals’ charter.
Mr Graham, a former BBC employee who previously ran the Advertising Standards Authority, wrote: ‘The European Court of Human Rights has recognised the state’s positive obligation to protect individuals from media intrusion into their private lives . . . due consideration will need to be given to the right of the individual to a fair trial and the right to respect for privacy.
‘It is not clear that there is a pressing social need to divulge the details of those individuals who have been arrested.’
Mr Graham, 62, who is paid £140,000 a year, questioned what the ‘pressing social need’ and ‘public interest’ could be in naming suspects. He added: ‘These judgments must be made in a context where once a name is released it may be impossible to retract it.’
His view has been echoed by the country’s senior judges. And Hugh Tomlinson QC, a leading figure in the Hacked Off campaign, wrote last week that if the name of someone who has been arrested is published, ‘many members of the public will assume that “there is no smoke without fire” and that, if a person is arrested, they must have done something wrong’.
Bill Waddington, chairman of
the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association, said: ‘It is important that,
unless there are exceptional reasons, an arrested person is not
identified by the police to the press.’
The Law Society said: ‘While it is arguable that the police should never be permitted to release the name of a person who has not been charged with an offence, we accept that in many cases there is a legitimate public interest in this information.’
Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, said there was no ‘pressing social need’ for the public to be told who was being held by the police.
He warned that identifying suspects risked them being denied a fair trial and would leave them exposed to ‘media intrusion into their private lives’.
Controversy: Information Commissioner Christoper Graham warned identifying suspects could deny them a fair trial
There are now fresh fears that police will press ahead with a draconian plan, recommended by Lord Justice Leveson in his landmark report, to keep secret the identities of people suspected of serious offences.
Under guidance being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers, revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week, forces across England and Wales would be banned from confirming the names of those they have arrested when talking to journalists.
Secretive route: Police could soon be banned
from identifying people they have arrested by a recommendation of the
Leveson Inquiry
The Government’s own legal reform advisory body, the Law Commission, has said that reporters should be able to check names with police forces.
But in his strongly worded response, the Information Commissioner has claimed that a policy of identifying all suspects would breach the Data Protection Act, which concerns the handling of personal information, and Labour’s notorious Human Rights Act, long described as a criminals’ charter.
Mr Graham, a former BBC employee who previously ran the Advertising Standards Authority, wrote: ‘The European Court of Human Rights has recognised the state’s positive obligation to protect individuals from media intrusion into their private lives . . . due consideration will need to be given to the right of the individual to a fair trial and the right to respect for privacy.
‘It is not clear that there is a pressing social need to divulge the details of those individuals who have been arrested.’
Mr Graham, 62, who is paid £140,000 a year, questioned what the ‘pressing social need’ and ‘public interest’ could be in naming suspects. He added: ‘These judgments must be made in a context where once a name is released it may be impossible to retract it.’
His view has been echoed by the country’s senior judges. And Hugh Tomlinson QC, a leading figure in the Hacked Off campaign, wrote last week that if the name of someone who has been arrested is published, ‘many members of the public will assume that “there is no smoke without fire” and that, if a person is arrested, they must have done something wrong’.
Rumbling controversy: The Mail on Sunday report from last week
Intrusion: In the future the press may not be able to identify crime suspects as it would breach their human rights
The Law Society said: ‘While it is arguable that the police should never be permitted to release the name of a person who has not been charged with an offence, we accept that in many cases there is a legitimate public interest in this information.’