Member

Once anonymity becomes the default, openness becomes something that must be justified rather than assumed. That runs against European human rights law, our own Human Rights Act and all the cornerstone principles of our democracy. The justification offered—that firearms officers face a heightened risk of reprisal—is not adequate. It might be true in particular cases, but the law already provides for that very argument. Where risk is demonstrated, courts can and do grant anonymity when it has been justified, on evidence, and shown to be strictly necessary. Not once have we been given a reason in any of the debates, public statements and conversations around these clauses why firearms officers should be singled out for a statutory presumption when others who face serious threats do not.