Cop plans to stop public knowing who has been charged with crime could let rapists like David Carrick carry on attacking
IMAGINE a parallel universe where Met Police serial rapist David Carrick was still free to sadistically torture women.
And you were unaware there was someone in your neighbourhood charged with being a child sex offender or prolific burglar.
Absurd new secret justice guidelines being issued to police forces make this nightmare scenario a real possibility.
A succession of cases like the flawed Sir Cliff Richard investigation means the media has already been prohibited from naming suspects on arrest.
The legacy of the Leveson Inquiry into Press standards ten years ago has also had a chilling effect on media freedoms.
Now, unless proactively issuing details of crimes, police will no longer confirm if a serious incident has happened unless the exact street and time of the incident is provided by a journalist.
They will not comment at all if a reporter names a suspect on the grounds it will invade their privacy.
Similarly, forces will not confirm the identity of anyone issued with a caution or Fixed Penalty Notice.
A topical example: The Met Police — subject of a scathing review this week — did not confirm Boris Johnson’s identity when he was issued with a Partygate fine.
Subtle change
They have likewise refused to comment when MPs have been arrested for serious sexual offences.
The College of Policing, the national policy and training body for forces, is now taking this crackdown on open justice a step further.
It is proposing to change its advice on the naming of criminal defendants when they are charged with crimes.
Presently, forces are advised that suspects “SHOULD be named” once they are charged.
But in future the CoP’s advice to police will say they “CAN be named”.
This subtle change of wording has a whole world of difference with massive potential ramifications for open justice.
It has been brought about by pressure from the Information Commissioner’s Office applying data protection laws.
The CoP’s draft guidance says forces “must consider their data protection obligations as well as the need for open justice and transparency”.
Forces will still be advised that they “should be more inclined” to release charging details for serious crimes such as rape and murder and where they have been reported in the Press and social media.
So, farcically, we are now at the stage where unless a serious crime has featured on Twitter the police will be under no obligation to release charge details.
Decisions on whether to identify defendants at the charging stage will be made on a case-by-case basis, effectively leaving it to individual police officers to decide.
But it will leave police free to suppress charge details of the worst crimes imaginable.
This corrosion of justice is already happening, even without the new guidelines.
Terrorist suspects have recently appeared in court without being named by police after being charged.
And a police officer convicted of killing ex-Aston Villa footballer Dalian Atkinson first appeared in court before charge details were released to the media, which meant he could not be named.
The absurdity of the new rules is made worse because criminal defendants will still be identified in court unless there is a powerful reason submitted to the judge for withholding details, such as a threat to life or compromise to national security.
But finding and reporting cases of serious public interest could be like looking for a needle in a haystack unless police or the CPS are willing to share the details with the public through the media.
It is at a local level where this proposed change will be most felt, as many cases will go unreported if they are not flagged by police on charge.
Criminals and sex offen-ders could be shielded from public accountability and victims left more vulnerable, with local newspapers, dying in droves, lacking resources to cover courts “on spec”.
In the most serious cases the new rules could mean serial rapists and paedo-philes eluding being reported on — and avoiding full justice.
Nothing brings this home more than the David Carrick case. I recently interviewed the woman who first came forward to name Met armed protection officer Carrick.
She did so after reading the victim impact statement given by Susan Everard at the Old Bailey sentencing of her daughter Sarah’s murderer Wayne Couzens, another Met firearms cop.
Hammer blow
Hertfordshire Police charged Carrick with the woman’s rape and released details to the media. Within hours further victims had come forward to report being raped and abused by him.
He eventually pleaded guilty to more than 80 sex offences, including 49 rapes, but refused to admit the first rape he was accused of and that was left on file.
As the judge who jailed Carrick for a minimum of 30 years pointed out, one woman’s bravery encouraged the others to come forward.
Without Herts Police releasing the initial charge details it is unlikely the single rape case would have been covered at all by the media.
Carrick’s other victims would have remained silent and he would have been left free to rape and torture.
Not only are the new proposed rules an affront to the long-established legal tenet that “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.
They are also potentially downright dangerous and could in some circumstances put the human rights and privacy of criminal defendants before those of their victims.
What madness.
If any new guidelines must be introduced then they should do the opposite of these restrictive proposals and help strengthen the public’s right to know.
As Dawn Alford, from the Society of Editors, said yesterday: “A successful working relationship between the police and the media remains essential to policing legitimacy in the UK.”
These measures are a hammer blow for justice and transparency and should not be introduced.