Interim guidance relating to the disclosure of the ethnicity and nationality of suspects

The College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council have published interim guidance on the disclosure of a suspect’s ethnicity and nationality.

There is a need for more consistency of how we report ethnicity and/or nationality information to support increasing trust and confidence in policing, whilst operating within the bounds of both legal and ethical considerations.

By taking a joint-College of Policing (CoP) and National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) position, this ensures all forces are adopting the same interim guidance to navigate this challenging area. 

The below recommendations have been made to chief officers:

On charge, forces should confirm the nationality and /or ethnicity of the suspect or defendant (where known or recorded) in high profile or sensitive investigations or operations where there is:

• a policing purpose in doing so.
• a related risk or impact on public safety such as rising community tension.
• mis or disinformation leading to community tension.
• a significant level of media or social media interest.

Forces should proactively release charging information where the crime is of a serious nature, such as rape or murder, where the incident has already been reported in the media or on social media sites, or for public reassurance reasons.

This information will be provided only on a contemporaneous basis. The final decision on the release of this information should be taken by the most senior investigating officer, in consultation with the force's head of communications.

Decisions on whether the information is released proactively or reactively should be based on a local risk assessment around the criteria above.

Information sharing: When a suspect is charged in a high profile or sensitive investigation or operation, forces may consider a representative (a nominated officer or press officer representative) attending the first magistrates’ court appearance to note the information submitted into public record. This will ensure the force is fully equipped with accurate details in good time.

Policing and its criminal justice partners have well-defined communication roles at different stages of the criminal justice process, including when to communicate about suspects and defendants publicly.  

This interim guidance is to ensure consistency, but it is likely that there will be an increase in demand to release immigration status when referring to nationality. 

• It is not the role or responsibility of the police to verify a suspect’s immigration status.
• It is for the Home Office to decide if it is appropriate in all the circumstances to confirm immigration status. 

This interim guidance will form part of a refreshed Media Relations authorised professional practice (APP) due to be published in late autumn, at which time the Law Commission review of the Contempt of Court Act is expected to be published.

We saw during last summer’s disorder, as well as in several recent high-profile cases, what the major, real-world consequences can be from what information police release into the public domain.  

We have to make sure our processes are fit for purpose in an age of social media speculation and where information can travel incredibly quickly across a wide range of channels.   

Disinformation and incorrect narratives can take hold in a vacuum. It is good police work for us to fill this vacuum with the facts about issues of wider public interest.  

Our aim with this guidance is to provide greater consistency with how we report this information.   

Being as fair, consistent and transparent as we can will improve confidence in policing as the definitive source of this information – making all our communities safer in the process.