This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/may/16/police-press-freedom

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
'Arrests anonymity' - is it really a denial of press freedom? 'Arrests anonymity' - is it really a denial of press freedom?
(4 months later)
The growing official desire to ensure that the police do not identify people who they arrest poses profound questions about the nature of journalism.The growing official desire to ensure that the police do not identify people who they arrest poses profound questions about the nature of journalism.
Before I take up that issue, let's look at where we are in this matter of "arrest anonymity." It is now clear that the home secretary, Theresa May, and her police chiefs are in complete agreement - suspects should not be officially named at the time of their arrest.Before I take up that issue, let's look at where we are in this matter of "arrest anonymity." It is now clear that the home secretary, Theresa May, and her police chiefs are in complete agreement - suspects should not be officially named at the time of their arrest.
She argues that arrested people should only be identified if there are "extremely unusual circumstances." This supports the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which is preparing guidance about the matter for forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.She argues that arrested people should only be identified if there are "extremely unusual circumstances." This supports the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which is preparing guidance about the matter for forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In an interview on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, the ACPO media spokesman, Andy Trotter, explained the thinking behind the guidance.In an interview on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, the ACPO media spokesman, Andy Trotter, explained the thinking behind the guidance.
He began by saying that "in the past we didn't name people we'd arrested", but there were occasions when "we would sometimes confirm a name put to us by a journalist."He began by saying that "in the past we didn't name people we'd arrested", but there were occasions when "we would sometimes confirm a name put to us by a journalist."
This practice "varied from force to force, even within forces, and depended on the relationship with the press officer and the journalist." He continued:This practice "varied from force to force, even within forces, and depended on the relationship with the press officer and the journalist." He continued:
"I think it smacked of an unhealthy relationship. This was done on an unofficial basis rather than in a proper process."I think it smacked of an unhealthy relationship. This was done on an unofficial basis rather than in a proper process.
So what I've sought to do is balance the rights of those people we arrest with the interests of justice. And if there is a case to release the name, perhaps if there are other victims to come forward… then there should be a process that we go through to decide why we release [a] name, it shouldn't be done on the basis of the fact that it's been a leak to a journalist...So what I've sought to do is balance the rights of those people we arrest with the interests of justice. And if there is a case to release the name, perhaps if there are other victims to come forward… then there should be a process that we go through to decide why we release [a] name, it shouldn't be done on the basis of the fact that it's been a leak to a journalist...
We've got to think of all those thousands of people that we arrest that are never charged, whose names are then put into the public domain."We've got to think of all those thousands of people that we arrest that are never charged, whose names are then put into the public domain."
[By implication, he is suggesting that the publicity is unfair to those individuals whose names are published and who, it later transpires, are not charged. Why? Because, presumably, it is felt that it tends to harm their reputations].[By implication, he is suggesting that the publicity is unfair to those individuals whose names are published and who, it later transpires, are not charged. Why? Because, presumably, it is felt that it tends to harm their reputations].
In researching the history of this business of identifying suspects, I sought advice from journalists, senior police officers and former police press officers. I am therefore certain that Trotter's portrayal of what used to happen,and often still happens, is correct.In researching the history of this business of identifying suspects, I sought advice from journalists, senior police officers and former police press officers. I am therefore certain that Trotter's portrayal of what used to happen,and often still happens, is correct.
So his assessment that the custom and practice of police-press relationships amounts to "an old pals' act" is a fair one.So his assessment that the custom and practice of police-press relationships amounts to "an old pals' act" is a fair one.
Indeed, I don't think any of us journalists would seek to deny it. Whether or not it was, and is, "unhealthy" could well be disputed because it's how we have always gone about our work in Britain, and not only in our dealings with the police.Indeed, I don't think any of us journalists would seek to deny it. Whether or not it was, and is, "unhealthy" could well be disputed because it's how we have always gone about our work in Britain, and not only in our dealings with the police.
From our first days in the job we learned the importance of "making contacts", of creating sources within organisations prepared to provide us with "secret" information we thought the public should know.From our first days in the job we learned the importance of "making contacts", of creating sources within organisations prepared to provide us with "secret" information we thought the public should know.
But that value judgement raises a key question: why are we so certain about what the public should know? What criteria do we use in reaching that decision, if any?But that value judgement raises a key question: why are we so certain about what the public should know? What criteria do we use in reaching that decision, if any?
We are aware that people avidly consume revelations about the misdemeanours - or alleged misdemeanours - of others, especially if they are touched by fame, but can we really justify it in terms of the wider public interest? On what grounds?We are aware that people avidly consume revelations about the misdemeanours - or alleged misdemeanours - of others, especially if they are touched by fame, but can we really justify it in terms of the wider public interest? On what grounds?
Most of the time, our adherence to a publish-and-be-damned agenda is simply one in which we regard disclosure, all disclosure, as beneficial to society.Most of the time, our adherence to a publish-and-be-damned agenda is simply one in which we regard disclosure, all disclosure, as beneficial to society.
We equate press freedom with full disclosure, regardless of the consequences for the individuals on the receiving end of unwanted, and sometimes unwarranted, publicity. We assume that our commitment to total transparency is, of itself, of public benefit.We equate press freedom with full disclosure, regardless of the consequences for the individuals on the receiving end of unwanted, and sometimes unwarranted, publicity. We assume that our commitment to total transparency is, of itself, of public benefit.
But is this so? One of the unintended consequences of the Leveson inquiry - and one that I imagine confirms editors' hostility towards it - was the way in which it raised questions we have rarely, if ever, asked ourselves about our work.But is this so? One of the unintended consequences of the Leveson inquiry - and one that I imagine confirms editors' hostility towards it - was the way in which it raised questions we have rarely, if ever, asked ourselves about our work.
The subject of arrest anonymity is certainly one. And it is also part of a wider concern in the modern era about the rights of individuals to be let alone (and rights per se).The subject of arrest anonymity is certainly one. And it is also part of a wider concern in the modern era about the rights of individuals to be let alone (and rights per se).
This should not be taken to mean that I am siding wholly with May and Trotter. There are dangers in allowing the police, as a matter of operational practice, to decide when to name an arrested person and when to withhold it.This should not be taken to mean that I am siding wholly with May and Trotter. There are dangers in allowing the police, as a matter of operational practice, to decide when to name an arrested person and when to withhold it.
It is also true that one of the press's main functions is to hold power to account, and that includes the police. Given the revelations of mistakes and cover-ups - such as Hillsborough, the death of Ian Tomlinson and the Savile scandal - we should not lightly grant them still greater powers of secrecy.It is also true that one of the press's main functions is to hold power to account, and that includes the police. Given the revelations of mistakes and cover-ups - such as Hillsborough, the death of Ian Tomlinson and the Savile scandal - we should not lightly grant them still greater powers of secrecy.
Then there is the fact that one increasingly worrying feature of policing nowadays is that so many people, who turn out to be innocent of any crime, are being arrested.Then there is the fact that one increasingly worrying feature of policing nowadays is that so many people, who turn out to be innocent of any crime, are being arrested.
That situation is a legitimate reason for inquiry, and one way of highlighting it is surely through publication. And, as I pointed out yesterday, celebrity is a sure-fire way of engaging the attention of the public to read about serious issues.That situation is a legitimate reason for inquiry, and one way of highlighting it is surely through publication. And, as I pointed out yesterday, celebrity is a sure-fire way of engaging the attention of the public to read about serious issues.
In the digital age, there are practical considerations too. What are the press supposed to do when the names of arrested people - or allegedly arrested people - appear on social media sites?In the digital age, there are practical considerations too. What are the press supposed to do when the names of arrested people - or allegedly arrested people - appear on social media sites?
It would be foolish, in spite of ACPO's wishes, to imagine that leaks will not occur when high-profile people are arrested.It would be foolish, in spite of ACPO's wishes, to imagine that leaks will not occur when high-profile people are arrested.
And it is inconceivable that we should not know when an elected person, such as the deputy speaker, is arrested. That is certainly a case where public interest is justified.And it is inconceivable that we should not know when an elected person, such as the deputy speaker, is arrested. That is certainly a case where public interest is justified.
I don't have a definitive solution, because it's difficult to conceive of a compromise. After all, Trotter's central aim (in company with the home office) is to create a system that will ensure every force withholds the identities of virtually every arrested person.I don't have a definitive solution, because it's difficult to conceive of a compromise. After all, Trotter's central aim (in company with the home office) is to create a system that will ensure every force withholds the identities of virtually every arrested person.
What I do accept, however, is that Trotter has some very good arguments on his side and that we, in the press, need to think more deeply about parroting "press freedom" every time people object to what we publish.What I do accept, however, is that Trotter has some very good arguments on his side and that we, in the press, need to think more deeply about parroting "press freedom" every time people object to what we publish.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.