Policy paper

Crime and Policing Bill: anonymity of firearms officers

Updated 20 June 2025

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 of reprisal from criminals and organised crime gangs if their identity is revealed following an armed incident. We are introducing measures to protect the identity of firearms officers charged with offences committed during the course of their duties.

How are we going to do it?

The Bill introduces:

• A presumption of anonymity for firearms officers who are defendants in cases in which they have discharged their firearm in the line of duty as party of their official functions. This would allow the court to make an order preventing information which would disclose the identity of firearms officers from being published in the listing for the first hearing of the case or from being released in open court.  

The presumption will apply in both the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court and will apply up to the point of conviction. 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.

There will continue to be judicial discretion to allow for identifying details to be released and for reporting restrictions to be lifted. In deciding whether to do so, the court should consider the facts of each individual case and whether it would be in the interests of justice.

• A presumption that the court will apply reporting restrictions in such cases to prevent the publication of details likely to reveal the identity of firearms officers.

• A statutory power to enable the court to take any additional measures in court where necessary in the interests of justice to prevent the defendant’s identity from being known by members of the public present in the courtroom. This means that where the court has decided to make an anonymity order for a firearms officer, it will then go on to consider whether it is appropriate in that instance for measures such as screens or voice modulation to also be used. There will continue to be judicial discretion based on the facts of each case.

• A power for the court to consider an application for anonymity to continue post-conviction, should the defendant wish to appeal their conviction. This will not constitute a presumption, nor will it apply where the firearms officer wishes to appeal their sentence. Judicial discretion will continue to apply based on the facts of each case.

Background

Anonymity for Firearms Officers

In criminal courts, adult defendants do not have a general right to anonymity, reflecting the principles of open justice. However, judges may impose reporting restrictions in exceptional circumstances to prevent the publication of identifying details if doing so would pose a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. These restrictions only apply after a person has been charged. Suspects who have not been charged with a criminal offence should not ordinarily be named by the police except in exceptional circumstances, such as a threat to life.

This measure is being introduced in light of the unique and dangerous nature of the work that firearms officers undertake. The measure recognises that firearms officers and their families face a greater risk of reprisal from gangs and organised crime groups than most other defendants if they are identified in criminal proceedings.

Key statistics

Anonymity for Firearms Officers

Q. A firearms officer who has killed someone, regardless of whether in the line of duty, has still taken a life. Why should they be afforded these additional protections?

Firearms officers play a crucial role in ensuring the safety and security of our citizens. They are trained to use lethal force when necessary and are deployed to address serious crimes involving dangerous criminals. Consequently, there is a higher risk of reprisal from gangs and organised crime groups from these officers being identified during criminal proceedings compared to other defendants.

Given these circumstances, we believe that it is appropriate that the starting point should be to grant anonymity to firearms officers involved in such cases. Judicial discretion will remain in place, allowing each case to be assessed individually, considering the implications of reporting restrictions on the interests of justice.

Q. Are you making it easier for police to harm people without being held to account?  

These measures strike a balance. The vast majority of police officers are dedicated public servants who put their lives in harm’s way to protect all members of the public.  

It is vital that police officers are accountable through the law for their use of force, and that use of their powers is scrutinised robustly.    

We will also ensure that highly trained officers have the confidence to use force to protect the public by using their skills to respond to emergencies.

Q. How will the presumption work?

The presumption will mean that granting anonymity will be the starting point, so that the court must order reporting restrictions prohibiting the publication of any details likely to identify the defendant unless to do so would be contrary to the interests of justice. This means that the court will retain a discretion to depart from the presumption in appropriate circumstances.

Q. Why aren’t you bringing in automatic anonymity for firearms officers?

In accordance with the principle of open justice, no defendants in criminal cases are granted automatic anonymity if they are aged 18 or over.

The court has the power to grant discretionary reporting restrictions to prevent the name of a defendant being published in exceptional circumstances.

We are not providing a different or greater protection to that which the court can currently provide on a discretionary basis in such cases; rather we are altering the starting point for judges’ considerations when deciding whether to make an order to impose reporting restrictions.

Q: Won’t creating a presumption of anonymity allow armed officers to act without fear of public identification, allowing them to believe they will not have to face the same level of scrutiny?  

The work of armed officers is unique and dangerous, and officers and their families are likely to be at increased risk if their identity is revealed following an armed incident. 

 The Accountability Review looked at what measures were needed to ensure the police could do their job to keep the public safe, while ensuring operational guidelines would be complied with and officers would act within the law.    

While it is vital that officers are accountable for their actions, it is also crucial that highly trained officers have the confidence to protect the public by using their skills to respond to emergencies. 

Lethal force is used very rarely in the UK, and of these uses a very small proportion are assessed as potentially criminal, so this is relevant to only a very small number of cases. A court can decline to order reporting restrictions where to do so would be contrary to the interests of justice.

Q. 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 of reprisal 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, but this presumption will mean that granting anonymity will be the starting point.

Q. Why are you providing a presumption of anonymity to firearms officers when there isn’t one for other defendants and those who are in other roles that put them at high risk such as prison officers who also come into contact with organised criminals in their job?

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.

Given these complex circumstances, this measure will mean there is 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. This change will apply to firearms officers who are defendants and will not impact on pre-charge anonymity of suspects.

Courts have powers to grant reporting restrictions where publication revealing the identity of other types of defendants would give rise to a real risk to the administration of justice, or to a real and immediate risk to the defendant’s life, and where such an order is necessary, taking into account the public interest in open justice.

Q. 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.

A court may already order anonymity measures or reporting restrictions in a case where the court judges that disclosure of a defendant’s identity would give rise to a real and immediate risk to life. This measure is being introduced in recognition of the unique responsibilities of firearms officers and the potential risks associated with their identification 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.