Home Secretary calls for more transparency from police over suspects
She said guidance to police was already being examined but it was an 'operational decision' for forces and the Crown Prosecution Service over what information to release.
The College of Policing said transparency is 'essential to prevent misinformation'.
The issue has been the subject of fierce debate in a series of high-profile cases, including recently over the charging of two men – reported to be Afghan asylum seekers – over the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton.
The Home Secretary said 'we do think more transparency is needed' in the information given by police.
She said: 'We do think the guidance needs to change and we have also already, about six months ago, we asked the Law Commission to look at this and to accelerate their review around some of the contempt of court issues, that's about what information can be released when there's a trial pending.'
She referred to a case where Iranian nationals were charged with spying offences in May and the Crown Prosecution Service revealed three of them had arrived either on small boats or a lorry.
She told BBC Radio 4's Today: 'It is an operational decision for the police and Crown Prosecution Service on an individual case, what and when information can be revealed in a live investigation.
'However, we do think that the guidance needs to change, the College of Policing is already looking at this, and Home Office officials are working with the College of Policing.'
A College of Policing spokesman said: 'Media relations guidance for police is already under review and is looking at how forces can best balance their obligations under contempt of court legislation with their responsibility to prevent disorder.
'Police forces make challenging and complex decisions on a case-by-case basis and transparency is essential to prevent misinformation and reassure the public.'
The Southport atrocity committed by Axel Rudakubana in July last year was also marked by a focus on the suspect's ethnicity and immigration status – with false rumours spreading online that he was a Muslim asylum seeker, fuelling the riots seen in the aftermath of the stabbings.
The same force, Merseyside Police, were more transparent when a car drove into crowds during Liverpool FC's Premier League victory parade, saying they had arrested a 'white British man'.
Emily Spurrell, Merseyside's Police and Crime Commissioner, told Today in Rudakubana's case the situation was complicated because he was under 18 when he was arrested, which created 'huge challenges' about what could be said.
She said: 'I think the police will always aim to be as transparent as possible, but they are limited because of their need to protect the criminal justice process.'
She acknowledged that 'we live in a very different world now' to when some of the guidance was first drafted as rumours could spread quickly online and there were some 'bad actors who deliberately circulate false information to serve a particular agenda'.
The Nuneaton case has led to fresh pressure on police over the information they make public.
Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, was arrested on July 26 and charged the next day with rape, according to Warwickshire Police.
He appeared at Coventry Magistrates' Court last Monday and has been remanded in custody.
Mohammad Kabir, 23, was arrested in Nuneaton on Thursday and charged with kidnap, strangulation and aiding and abetting rape of a girl under 13, the force added.
He appeared at Coventry Magistrates' Court on Saturday and has been remanded in custody.
Warwickshire Police did not deny a Mail On Sunday report which said Mulakhil and Kabir are asylum seekers.
Reform UK's leader Nigel Farage and Warwickshire Council leader George Finch claimed there had been a 'cover-up' in the case.
Mr Farage said it was a 'cover-up that in many ways is reminiscent of what happened after the Southport killings last year'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Labour's path out of its immigration nightmare
Photo by Justin Tallis/Politics is raging this August. I cannot recall a political battle being played out with such intensity in a summer recess as the one being fought now. The cause of the noisy conflict is connected in a thousand highly charged ways to asylum and migration. Nigel Farage launches various grenades at his weekly press conferences. He knows how to stop the boats. He wants the police to tell us more about the ethnic origins of those they arrest. Robert Jenrick is on the airwaves and complaining about a lack of reliable, transparent data on sex crimes committed by migrants, all while appearing to know the precise degree to which asylum seekers are causing mayhem. Keir Starmer wants the police to be more open. The agreement with France to return some of those on boats is being implemented this week, accompanied by a media blitz. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, leaps from the Today programme to Tik Tok to put her case. On one level this amount of political engagement is extraordinary when many politicos are on holiday and a general election is years away. Yet the stakes could not be higher. Reform leads in the polls, an unpopular government desperately needs to be seen as effective, and Jenrick wants to lead a Conservative Party that is currently nowhere to be seen. But urgency goes well beyond politics and polling. The sense of crisis in relation to boats, asylum seekers, crime, the use of asylum hotels and all the rest of the explosive mix has been in place for years. Without resolution the divisions deepen. There have been two crises of globalisation, the financial crash of 2008 and the ongoing movement of people. The first was an abrupt crisis, the latter a continuous and accelerating trend of our age. But in a way that is overlooked – and its lessons overlooked too – the international response to the economic emergency was entirely different to what is happening in relation to the monumental challenge of migration. The crash was met with formidable collective hyperactivity from governments across the globe. There was a co-ordinated fiscal stimulus on an epic scale. Interest rates were cut by various countries at the same time. Even fiscal conservatives such as President Bush in Washington and Germany's Angela Merkel joined in. The coming together was marked by the G20 in London in 2009 when Gordon Brown hosted countries from around the world to focus on the consequences of the crash. By then President Obama had replaced Bush and was a key participant. This week in an interview the former Conservative Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, acknowledged that he had formed a much more positive view on Brown as he reflected on how the then prime minister responded to the events of 2008. That crisis had a long tail, and many of its consequences are still being played out. But the immediate emergency was addressed. There was no global depression as seemed possible at the height of the drama. International co-operation, the recognition that unilateral actions by individual governments would not be enough, had guided the global economy away from the cliff's edge. What Brown described as the first crisis of the global economy was relatively short. This is not the case with the global movement of people. On it goes with every government and populist politician hailing their own meretricious semi-solutions. Send them to Rwanda! But that breaks the law! We'll send them anyway! Send in the navy! They're all criminals and mad people – so we won't take them! Where will they go? That's not our problem! This is a form of international anarchy compared with what followed the crash. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The course was set ten years ago when the then German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, assumed that EU countries would agree to take in Syrian refugees escaping the hell of the Assad regime. Her thoughts echoed the leaders at the time of the financial crash. If countries co-operated there would be a manageable way of dealing with a humanitarian crisis. Fearing electoral slaughter other governments refused to do so. Ironically most of those governments were defeated anyway partly over the issue of border control. But Merkel's failed attempt at co-ordination triggered the era of largely ineffective unilateral posturing. The crisis has endured much longer than the one sparked by the financial crash. Merkel's instincts were the right ones. Even more than the crash, the movement of people demands co-operation. The crisis is literally around borders between countries. Unilateral action is close to meaningless without involving those that share borders. More fundamentally asylum seekers are not going to disappear however tough one country might be. If they have the means to escape from tyrants, war, famine, climate change they will take them. They may include Trump's criminals and 'mad people', but there will be plenty of others too. If Trump kicks them out of the US they will try to go somewhere else. The reasons for the contrasting response to the two global crises are depressing. With the economic emergency the politics and policy requirements were neatly aligned. Governments could not allow more banks to collapse or to ignore the fragilities of the global economy if they wished to survive. They had to act together. The movement of people is even more challenging as a policy dilemma, but there is much to be gained politically by pretending the solutions are simple and can be applied by mighty individual leaders alone. For Farage or Jenrick to acknowledge complexity would be to deprive them of their appeal, men of action who could deal with a global crisis with a click of their mighty fingers. Trump has openly acknowledged that he won the election last year on his plans for border control. He has never admitted that his ideas were sweeping and simplistic in the global context in which people will keep moving. Such a challenge needs the equivalent of Brown's G20 gathering on a regular basis. There may well be a case for the equivalent of the Rwanda scheme but one that is run on behalf of several countries with international supervision. The arguments for revising the European Convention on Human Rights are strong, but only with all signatories agreeing to amendments out of mutual self-interest. The post-crash assumptions that triggered co-operation between countries are needed urgently now. This is why the agreement between the British administration and French governments this week is more significant than it might seem. The numbers are small but the deal at least represents a recognition that the issue is so demanding countries must work together. It is closer to the mindset that addressed the immediate crisis after the crash. There are bound to be fragilities. Political agreements are dependent on the strength of elected leaders. Few are robust in the current climate of angry disillusionment. But the French deal is not dependent on the authority of President Macron alone. The key figure in the lengthy negotiations with Yvette Cooper was the interior minister, Bruno Retailleau, on the centre-right and from a different political background to Macron. Retailleau is not 'soft' on asylum but sees the difference between macho posturing and working as effectively as possible with other governments to address the problems. As far as the British government sees it, Macron's significant influence was more to secure the backing of the EU, support that was by no means guaranteed. The deal might not last long but also has the potential to be built on rather than collapsing pathetically. The political battle of this August will continue up to the next election. Some of the language and claims will fuel the anger in what Jenrick calls 'the tinderbox', a situation that he threatens to spark every time he mentions it. Beyond the electoral clash the Labour government has a much deeper motive for addressing the challenge of the borders. One of the ideas theoretically propelling the government forward is a belief in an active state. The voters will not share this faith if the state cannot control the borders. The effectiveness of that control depends on states working together. Look at what happened in 2008. Steve Richards presents Rock N Roll Politics at the Edinburgh Festival from Sunday 10 August. [Further reading: The problem with Robert Jenrick's migrant sex crime claims] Related
Spectator
8 hours ago
- Spectator
Portrait of the week: Migrant treaty kicks in, car finance claim kicked out and a nuclear reactor on the moon
Home A treaty with France came into operation by which perhaps 50 small-boat migrants a week could be sent back to France in exchange for asylum seekers in France with family connections to Britain. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, could not say when the returns would begin. The number of migrants arriving in England in small boats in the seven days to 4 August was 1,047; the total for the year reached more than 25,000 at a faster rate than ever. The population of England and Wales rose by 706,881 in a year, the Office for National Statistics estimated, to 61.8 million by June 2024, of which only 29,982 was by natural increase, the rest being net migration. The Guardian reported that 2.99 million of the 6.23 million patients in England awaiting care have not had either their first appointment with a specialist or a diagnostic test since being referred by a GP. The government would miss its borrowing target by £41.2 billion, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research; the answer was to raise taxes. The Supreme Court ruled that millions could not claim compensation for car dealers having received hidden commission from lenders when customers signed up for car finance before 2021. But the court upheld one type of claim, so the Financial Conduct Authority will consult on running a compensation scheme, to cost between £9 billion and £18 billion. The Charity Commission rebuked all parties to a dispute between the Duke of Sussex and the chairwoman of Sentebale, the charity he founded, but found no evidence of systematic 'misogynoir'. Civil service internships will be offered in future only to students from 'lower socio-economic backgrounds', based on the occupations of their parents when the applicant was 14; butchers and dustmen would do, and even train-drivers. LNER warned passengers not to travel north of Newcastle on the day of Storm Floris. A failure at the Swanwick air traffic control centre cancelled hundreds of flights. Heathrow airport said it would spend £49 billion on improvements, including £21 billion on a third runway. Two men appeared in court charged in connection with the rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton; Warwickshire Police said: 'Once someone is charged with an offence, we follow national guidance. This guidance does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status.' Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, aged 20, was convicted of assault and actual bodily harm against two policewomen at Manchester airport last year. Tommy Robinson was arrested at Luton airport in connection with an alleged assault at St Pancras station last week. Dame Stella Rimington, the first woman director-general of MI5, died aged 90. Lord Desai, the economist, died aged 85. India won the fifth Test by six runs. Abroad President Donald Trump of the United States enjoyed another bout of throwing tariffs around: 39 per cent for Switzerland, 35 per cent for Canada, 50 per cent for Brazil. He then said he was sacking the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, after estimates of job growth in May and June were revised. Mr Trump said two nuclear submarines would 'be positioned in the appropriate regions' in response to 'highly provocative' comments by the former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. Mr Trump had said: 'Russia, I think it's disgusting what they're doing,' after more drones and missiles were launched against Ukraine than ever. After street protests, MPs in Ukraine overturned legislation passed a week earlier that had removed the independence of two anti-corruption agencies. A big oil depot fire near Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi was blamed by Moscow on a Ukrainian drone attack. Eight countries of Opec+ (including Russia) agreed to produce more oil. BP announced its biggest discovery in 25 years: an oil and gas field off Brazil. Nasa hatched plans for a nuclear reactor on the moon. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, resolved to reoccupy the Gaza Strip fully. Hamas declared that it would not agree to disarm unless a sovereign Palestinian state was established. Canada said it would recognise Palestine as a state in September. The International Committee of the Red Cross was 'appalled' by videos of two emaciated hostages in Gaza. A boat with 157 migrants from the Horn of Africa sank off the coast of Yemen and only 12 were rescued. The Pope said mass for a million young people at Tor Vergata on the outskirts of Rome. Aalborg Zoo in Denmark appealed for guinea pigs and horses, to feed its lions and tigers. CSH
Spectator
8 hours ago
- Spectator
Welcome to the Age of Jerks
How screwed is Britain? I've checked with the Impartiality Police. They said stick to the facts. Like many ailing, ageing western democracies, we've had low growth, soaring debts and flat living standards for nearly two decades. Have our politicians met the moment? You tell me. Perhaps, as The Spectator has long advocated, we need some heretical and brave thinking to improve our prospects and make sense of the giant forces – of technology, ecology and demography – that are reshaping our world at a dizzying rate. For a decade, I have tried to rebalance the news, from events to trends. The result of all this: a new podcast from the Today franchise, called Radical. I've always had a soft spot for the word. When I was at Downing College, Cambridge, my don said that when he sat the All Souls exam in Oxford, where you write about one word for three hours, his word was 'radical'. It comes from Latin radix, for root. Though now associated with upheaval, the etymology carries a different sense, closer to 'the root of the matter'. If writing about the word today, I would argue that the radical spirit, long associated with the left, now animates the transatlantic right. On last week's episode, Dr James Orr, the Cambridge theologian and friend of J.D. Vance who is becoming to Nigel Farage what Keith Joseph was to Mrs Thatcher, described the ambition of his new thinktank, the Centre for a Better Britain. I reminded him of the lovely line from William Buckley, in his 1955 opening editorial for the National Review, that a conservative is one who 'stands athwart history, yelling Stop!' I suggested the elegiac conservatism of Michael Oakeshott and Roger Scruton has been succeeded by the missionary zeal of Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, who stand afore history, yelling 'Go!' Dr Orr believes this is not just because of the marriage between MAGA and assorted techno-utopians; nor is it a response merely to the rampaging globalisation chronicled in Vance's memoir, with its Scrutonian title of Hillbilly Elegy. He argues that 1789 to 2016 was an Age of Liberalism, and now we're suffering the birth pangs of a new epoch. What should we call it? Such is the rate of technological innovation today, some people call it The Great Acceleration. Sadly, that's been and gone. AI, which is underhyped rather than overhyped, will speed up history as never before. For instance, I suspect the future of work is Head (AI), Hand (Robots), Heart (Us, we hope). Acceleration is the rate of change of speed. The rate of change of acceleration is jerks. This is the Age of Jerks. At Lord's the other week, I spoke to a former prime minister. This kind soul wondered aloud if PMQs is the optimal use of a PM's time. It eliminates half of Wednesday and much of Tuesday, so around 20 per cent of the week. The arguments for PMQs are familiar. Of course PMs hate it, you may say. But would a monthly interrogation by the liaison committee, while annoying for bulletin editors and keyboard warriors, better serve democracy? I put this to Kemi Badenoch, whom I have just interviewed for TV. She said she likes the current arrangement. I shall remind her of that if she becomes prime minister. Watching the edit, I wondered if I am encouraging too many tears on television. Recently, in a BBC pilgrimage to India, I cried when thinking about my dear departed dad. Mrs Badenoch has a similar moment when talking about her late father. It was a revealing moment from a politician who's not normally known for her vulnerability. I strongly believe in rote learning poetry. I can recite, verbatim, most of Gray's 'Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard', Satan's unanswerable temptation in Book IX of Paradise Lost, and several of Shakespeare's sonnets. I do it partly to combat cognitive decline. In the week of BBC scandals about Gaza, Glastonbury and MasterChef, I dutifully turned my attention to a denser verse – the BBC editorial guidelines – but found the decline accelerated.
