Police forces across the United Kingdom have been handed new guidance that could fundamentally reshape how information about suspects is shared with the public. As of August 13, 2025, officers are now encouraged to consider disclosing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects charged in high-profile and sensitive cases—a move designed to boost transparency, counter misinformation, and restore public trust in law enforcement, according to reporting from Sky News, BBC, and The Independent.
The interim guidance, developed jointly by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the College of Policing, came after months of heated debate and several controversial incidents that put police communication under the microscope. The change follows mounting criticism over what some saw as a lack of openness in cases involving suspects with complex backgrounds, particularly asylum seekers, and accusations that authorities were withholding information from the public.
“We want to be as transparent and as open as possible with the public,” said Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson, speaking to Sky News after the announcement. She emphasized that the government welcomes the guidance and believes it will be “really helpful,” adding that police should release ethnicity and nationality details unless there is “good reason not to.”
The guidance, effective immediately, is not a blanket order. Instead, it instructs police to weigh ethical and legal considerations—such as contempt of court laws, which protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial—before making disclosures. The decision to release such details remains at the discretion of individual police forces, but the NPCC and the Home Office have made it clear that, in cases where public safety or significant public interest is at stake, transparency should be the default position.
The move comes in response to several high-profile cases that sparked public outcry and, in some instances, civil unrest. One such incident involved the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton, where two men—reported to be Afghan asylum seekers—were charged. Warwickshire Police did not confirm the suspects’ immigration status at the time, prompting Reform UK to accuse the force of a “cover-up.” Warwickshire Police strongly denied these claims, insisting they had followed existing national guidance.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who had called for more transparency from the police just days before the new rules were unveiled, told the BBC that there needed to be “more transparency in cases” over the backgrounds of suspects. The Home Office echoed this sentiment, stating, “Public trust requires transparency and consistency from the authorities that serve them.”
Another case that influenced the new guidance was the Southport murders committed by Axel Rudakubana in July 2024. When police failed to release information about Rudakubana’s ethnicity and immigration status, speculation and misinformation quickly filled the void online. False narratives about the suspect’s background spread rapidly on social media, fueling riots across England and Northern Ireland between July 30 and August 5, 2024. Deputy Chief Constable Sam de Reya, the NPCC’s lead for communications and media, described these as “real-world consequences” of the information police choose to release—or withhold.
“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,” de Reya told Sky News. She also stressed the need for police processes to be “fit for purpose in an age of social media speculation and where information can travel incredibly quickly across a wide range of channels.”
In contrast, Merseyside Police took a different tack during a separate incident in May 2025, when a car ploughed into crowds celebrating Liverpool FC’s Premier League victory. To quash rumors of a terrorist attack, the force promptly disclosed that the suspect was a white British man. This swift release of information was widely seen as effective in preventing the spread of misinformation and easing public fears.
The new guidance is not without its critics. Some anti-racism campaigners, including the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, warned that revealing suspects’ ethnicity and migration status could “send a chilling message: that some people are inherently more ‘suspect’.” Former Metropolitan Police Chief Superintendent Dal Babu also cautioned about “unintended consequences,” suggesting there may now be an expectation for police to release such information in every case, potentially leading to more speculation when details are withheld. “They’re in a damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation,” Babu told BBC Radio 4.
Chief Constable Sir Andy Marsh, CEO of the College of Policing, emphasized that the interim guidance is about consistency and fairness. “Information can be released for all ethnicities and nationalities when it meets the right criteria,” Marsh stated. He also reiterated that officers will continue to police “without fear or favor.”
It’s important to note that, while the College of Policing’s previous media relations guidance did not prohibit sharing details about a suspect’s nationality, asylum status, or ethnicity, it also did not explicitly mention these categories. This ambiguity meant that the release of such information was largely left to the discretion of each police force, resulting in inconsistent practices across the country. The new guidance aims to bring greater clarity and uniformity to these decisions.
The Home Office will play a supporting role by authorizing the release of relevant immigration information when appropriate and upon police request. “The public, and police forces themselves, want greater clarity on when, why and how information is released and the legitimate and compelling reasons it may need to be withheld,” a Home Office spokesperson told Sky News. They added that all cases will involve consultation with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and that the government has asked the Law Commission to expedite its review of contempt laws relating to public statements made before trials.
The guidance is currently interim and will be reviewed as part of a broader assessment of the College of Policing’s authorized professional practice for media relations later in 2025. Police and crime commissioners have largely welcomed the move. Emily Spurrell of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners told The Independent, “We have seen the speed with which mis- or disinformation can spread online and the danger to public safety that can cause, so it is right police keep the public informed as far as is possible whilst preserving a suspect’s right to a fair trial.”
Ultimately, the new guidance reflects a delicate balancing act: the need to protect the rights of suspects and ensure fair trials, while also maintaining public trust and safety in an era when rumors and misinformation can spread faster than ever before. As police forces adapt to these new expectations, the coming months will reveal whether greater transparency can indeed help restore confidence in British policing—or whether the risks of unintended consequences will prove more difficult to manage than anticipated.
