'Secret arrests' fear as police seek ban on naming suspects: Plan threatens to turn Britain into a 'banana republic'

Fears were growing last night that a draconian crackdown on the public’s right to know who the police are arresting was close to being finalised.

Police chiefs are looking to ban the Press and public from being told the identity of a crime suspect who has been arrested.

The Association of Chief Police Officers is drawing up the plans as it considers implementing a recommendation by Lord Justice Leveson in which all police forces would be banned from confirming the names of suspects to journalists.

Critics yesterday called the plan an assault on open justice and said it threatened to turn Britain into a ‘banana republic’.

They suggested that such a move could, in theory, lead to people being arrested and locked up in secret as is the case in brutal totalitarian regimes.

The plan for ‘secret arrests’ is being opposed by the Law Commission, the Government’s own adviser on law reform. It believes that it is in the interests of justice that the police release the names of everyone who is arrested, except in very exceptional circumstances.

It argues that there are cases of clear public interest in which arrests should be reported, and it opposes a blanket ban on releasing names.

Trevor Sterling, the lawyer representing Jimmy Savile’s victims, said the publication of a suspect’s name helps to encourage other potential victims to come forward. ‘It is difficult to strike a balance, but if someone like Savile’s name is not published, victims of sexual abuse would not have the confidence to come forward,’ he said.

Padraig Reidy, of Index On Censorship, a civil liberties organisation, said: ‘You can very quickly find yourself in a situation where you have secret arrests. We have a concept of open justice.

‘What is being proposed is very scary because if you do not know who has been arrested or why, people can be taken off the streets without anyone knowing and the police would not be accountable or properly scrutinised.


‘This sort of thing happens in other countries. People are arrested, they disappear and no one ever knows why.’ Under current arrangements, police release basic details of a person arrested. In some cases police will confirm a name to journalists, but this practice varies from force to force.

Some forces have effectively introduced the new practice in the aftermath of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations.

It has led to a situation where a well-known celebrity arrested as part of Operation Yewtree, the investigation into the Savile scandal, cannot be named by the media, although he has been widely identified on the internet.

The 83-year-old was arrested on March 28 in Berkshire on suspicion of sexual offences, but the Metropolitan Police refused to release his name to the Press.

By contrast, the names of other suspects accused of historical sexual offences have been published in the Press after their names were confirmed by other forces or by lawyers.



Arrest secrecy: A lawyer representing Jimmy Savile's victims said naming criminal suspects encourages other victims to come forward

Members of the Law Commission and ACPO will meet in the coming weeks in an attempt to find common ground.

Yesterday Law Commissioner David Ormerod, QC, said: ‘It is imperative that we have confidence that our legal process is transparent.

‘In drafting our provisional proposals, we considered freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act, which covers the Press’s right to report and the public’s right to know.

‘Clearly this has to be balanced with an individual’s right to privacy. But it is not hard to imagine cases of clear public interest in which arrests should be reported.’

Andy Trotter, chief constable of British Transport Police and the lead officer on media policy for ACPO, disagrees with the Law Commission’s position because it does not take account of the circumstances of a suspect whose reputation was damaged by identification but who was later found to be innocent.

He said: ‘It is not correct to say police are looking to keep arrests secret, but rather protect the public in line with Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations.

‘A member of the public could be arrested and then have no further action taken against them.

‘An arrest does not mean someone is guilty and their release might not achieve the same publicity.

‘There will most likely be exceptions to this in the interests of justice and to prevent and detect crime. We are still in the process of drafting guidance and we are still talking to a range of parties and any decision will have to be approved with the College of Policing.’

PRESS CRITIC 'GAVE FALSE EVIDENCE TO LEVESON INQUIRY UNDER OATH'



Campaigner: Willy Moy, head of Full Fact, was accused of giving false evidence to the Leveson Inquiry

A staunch supporter of Press regulation gave false evidence on oath to the Leveson Inquiry, it was claimed yesterday.


Will Moy, head of Full Fact, a group campaigning against ‘inaccuracy in the media’, told Lord Justice Leveson that his organisation was ‘constituted as a charity, and in the process of registering as a charity’.


He went on to say it operated ‘under a statutory public benefit obligation’.


Lord Justice Leveson drew extensively on Full Fact’s evidence in his report, calling its work ‘extremely important’.


He wrote: ‘I am pleased to recognise that Full Fact can claim to be one of the organisations that does seek to “guard the guardians”.’ Its submissions went to the ‘very core of what I’ve had to consider’.


However, seven months before Mr Moy testified, Full Fact had been refused registration as a charity, according to the Sunday Telegraph.


In July 2011 a Charity Tribunal judge heard that Full Fact lacked the ‘requisite objectivity’ and was not ‘established for the public benefit’, it was said. The judge denied the organisation charitable status, saying it was too political.


Mr Moy, 29, is also a director of Hacked Off, a pressure group leading the campaign for Press regulation. Full Fact claims to specialise in exposing journalists who it says are ‘playing tricks with the truth’. It says the media’s ‘inaccuracy’ proves that the Press must ‘be subject to additional constraints’.


However Peter Lilley, the Tory MP and former Cabinet minister, who opposes state-backed Press regulation, said: ‘They do not seem to hold themselves to the standards they demand for others.’


Mr Moy said: ‘The position we gave is correct. I don’t think we misled Lord Justice Leveson and I don’t think he will have felt misled.’ He added that Full Fact had not given up trying to register as a charity.