Policy paper

Crime and Policing Act 2026: anonymity of firearms officers factsheet

Published 11 May 2026

What are we going to do?

The work of armed police officers is unique and dangerous. Firearms officers are trained to use lethal force on behalf of the state to protect life. They and their families are likely to be at increased risk from criminals and organised gangs if their identity is revealed following an armed incident.

The Act establishes a presumption that firearms officers who are charged with offences relating to, and committed during, their duties will have their anonymity preserved during the court process through reporting restrictions.

How are we going to do it?

The Act introduces a power for the court to make an anonymity order for firearms officers, with a presumption that the order should be made. This means that the starting point will be that reporting restrictions should be ordered which prevent the publication of details relating to the defendant that are likely to reveal their identity. There will continue to be judicial discretion to not impose reporting restrictions, and in deciding whether to order reporting restrictions the court should consider the facts of individual cases and the interests of justice. The presumption will also only apply where the offence relates to an incident where a firearm has been discharged by the defendant and where the offence involved the exercise of the officer’s functions as a firearms officer in the line of duty.

The presumption will not apply to any other police officer who uses force in their duties or indeed a firearms officer when using force that does not involve the discharge of a firearm. The power will apply in both the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court and will apply up to the point of conviction.

Background

Following the shooting of Chris Kaba and the subsequent conclusion of the trial of Martyn Blake the Home Secretary announced the outcome of the Accountability Review. There is currently no presumption of anonymity in place for any group of adult defendants in criminal courts, in accordance with the principles of open justice. Judges do have the power to grant discretionary reporting restrictions to prevent identifying details of the defendant being published in exceptional circumstances. These include cases where revealing the identity of the defendant would pose a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. This only applies once the person has been charged; however, suspects who have not yet been charged with a criminal offence should not be routinely named.

This presumption is being introduced in light of the unique nature of the work that firearms officers undertake and the higher degree of risk to them and their families, from gangs and organised crime groups, arising from being identified in criminal proceedings as compared to other types of defendants.

Key statistics

The use of lethal force by the police is very rare in the UK; in the year ending March 2024, there were 2 incidents in England and Wales in which a police officer intentionally discharged a firearm at a person. This is 0.01% of a total 17,589 firearms operations over the same period.

Frequently asked questions

Will other police officers receive the same presumption of anonymity?

No, the presumption will only apply to firearms officers. This is due to the unique nature of their role and the higher degree of risk to them from being identified in criminal proceedings.

During the course of the Accountability Review, the Home Office heard that firearms officers fear losing anonymity during criminal proceedings and the long-lasting impact that this can have on the safety of their families.
Firearms officers are already routinely granted anonymity in these cases for exactly these reasons.

Isn’t this restricting open justice/limiting freedom of press?

Open Justice principles and the ability for the press to report on cases continues to be an important principle in our justice system. The legislation will respect these key principles.

Defendants can already be granted anonymity for the purposes of reporting restrictions in cases where the court judges that there is a real and immediate risk to life. This limited presumption is being introduced due to the unique nature of firearms officers’ roles and the risks that arise from their being identified during court proceedings. The media will continue to be able to make representations to the court to argue that anonymity should not apply in any particular case.

Why are you providing a presumption of anonymity to firearms officers when there isn’t one for other defendants?

Firearms officers carry out a unique role and there is a higher degree of risk to them, from gangs and organised crime groups, arising from being identified in criminal proceedings than other types of defendants.

There will still be judicial discretion, on the facts of each case and considering the effect of reporting restrictions on the interests of justice, not to impose reporting restrictions, but we believe it is appropriate that the starting point in these cases should be to grant anonymity.

Where publication of a defendant’s name would pose a real and immediate risk to their life, judges already have the discretion to grant anonymity where the risk is judged to be objectively well-founded.