A group of crime journalists has complained to the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) following a row over the release of details about the Southport dance class killings.
Journalists had pushed for the full background of the case to be published, previously shared by police, following the guilty pleas entered by Axel Rudakubana on Monday but they have been barred from doing so until after the sentencing. The 18-year-old has admitted murdering three children attending a dance class in July.
Chair of the Crime Reporters Association (CRA) Rebecca Camber wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson on Tuesday over perceived interference by the CPS in the release of information by police.
Camber, who is crime and security editor of the Daily Mail, wrote: “There has been a worrying pattern whereby forces wanting to provide information to the press have been instructed to stay silent.
“The CRA are concerned that this is undermining efforts to improve police press relations and affecting public confidence and trust in policing and the wider criminal justice system.”
Police ‘wanted to say much more’ about Southport case
Merseyside Police Chief Constable Serena Kennedy said the force had wanted to say more about the Southport case at an earlier stage but was advised not to by prosecutors so they did not want to risk releasing information that could prejudice a criminal trial.
Kennedy said on Monday: “From day one we have been as open as we possibly could and have constantly been in touch with the CPS who have advised us on what information could be released. We have wanted to say much more to show we were being open and transparent, but we have been advised throughout that we couldn’t do so as it would risk justice being delivered.”
Head of Counter Terrorism Policing Matt Jukes also issued a statement about the fact Rudakubana had been referred to a counter-extremism scheme three times: “Information about these referrals have not been withheld due to any lack of candour. We have taken advice from the Crown Prosecution Service on what information could be released and when, so as not to risk justice being delivered.”
Widespread disorder broke out after the Southport killings, and false rumours were spread online that the suspect was an asylum seeker who had been known to MI6.
Camber wrote that the CPS decision on Monday to try to stop the media reporting full details provided at a pre-trial briefing despite Rudakubana’s guilty pleas could allow conspiracy theories to flourish. She noted that although sentencing still needs to take place, judges cannot be prejudiced by information shared outside court.
“The CRA believes that this decision was contrary to open justice principles and risked fuelling a dangerous narrative of cover-up and conspiracy, which had previously fanned the flames of disorder.
“Given the highly sensitive nature of the case, police were desperate to explain in full their commendable efforts to investigate Rudakubana, his background and why decisions were taken about charges. Instead, the force was effectively gagged.
“Officers felt that they had been denied that opportunity to reveal the full facts to the public and provide vital reassurance that this was not a cover-up.”
She added: “It is no coincidence that reactions from almost every politician to the guilty pleas yesterday focused on the release of information.
“The CRA believes there has been a significant overreach by the CPS in this case which has fuelled a cover-up narrative.”
The CRA complained about another two cases where the CPS had stepped in over planned police briefings to the media.
In a separate investigation, another force was told by the CPS that they should not brief the media about the suspected whereabouts of a fugitive accused of murder, and he is still at large.
This is despite success when the media has publicised other manhunts, including the search for Sara Sharif’s father, stepmother and uncle.
A third force was advised last week by the prosecuting body to cancel a pre-trial briefing on an alleged killer on the grounds that charges had been delayed, Camber wrote.
A review following the disastrous media handling of the search for Nicola Bulley highlighted the risk of social media commentators filling the vacuum if mainstream, trained journalists are not kept informed.
“The CRA has heard concerns from several forces who feel they cannot move forward with the recommendations of the review due to the CPS preventing police briefings taking place and seeking to censor press officers who cannot even offer guidance to reporters due to CPS insistence on the control of information,” Camber added.
The CPS has been approached for comment.
[Read more: ‘Pick up the phone’ is one of 26 fixes offered to police by Crime Reporters Association]
Read the Crime Reporters Association open letter to the CPS in full:
Dear Mr Parkinson,
I am writing on behalf of the Crime Reporters Association (CRA) to raise our concerns about the CPS influence on police briefings to the media. There has been a worrying pattern whereby forces wanting to provide information to the press have been instructed to stay silent. The CRA are concerned that this is undermining efforts to improve police press relations and affecting public confidence and trust in policing and the wider criminal justice system.
Following Axel Rudakubana’s arrest last year, Merseyside Police was very keen to release as much information as possible to respond to the swirling misinformation and rumours about him being a Muslim asylum seeker who had just arrived in Britain.
While acutely conscious of the need to protect a prosecution and the anonymity of a youth in custody, they correctly assessed that there was a clear policing purpose in providing more information to the media than they would ordinarily offer following an arrest. It wasn’t just a matter of public confidence and trust in policing at stake, it was about public safety.
Among the non-contentious facts the police wanted to brief media as riots were erupting was the defendant’s religion. The argument has been made in recent days that being more open and transparent could have prevented some of the violence that followed as details about the suspect’s religion would have negated the extreme right wing’s spurious claims. Whether it would have averted riots we will never know, but the CRA contend that police should be able to make their own decisions on what to brief the media and have the freedom to take the necessary steps to quell disorder.
In October the CRA was consulted for advice about a proposed police briefing on further charges against Rudakubana, before being told that the briefing had been cancelled and charges postponed on the instruction of the CPS. Again, policing sources expressed their frustration that they had not been allowed to explain to the media the sensitive nature of the investigation being undertaken and it was feared the delay may stoke social media speculation, given police leave had been cancelled in anticipation of potential unrest at the announcement of the charges. Whilst that briefing did eventually take place, it was felt that police efforts to build relations with the media reporting on the case had been thwarted unnecessarily.
A month later, another force was advised by the CPS that they could not brief the media about the suspected whereabouts of a fugitive accused of murder in an unrelated case. As a result, press interest quickly waned and consequently he remains at large. No briefing has ever been held on this case despite other forces reporting success in tracing fugitives like Sara Sharif’s killers through such public appeals.
Last week the CPS forced a third police force to cancel their pre-trial briefing on a suspected killer. The briefing was cancelled just hours after an invitation had been issued on the grounds that charges had been delayed. Officers were left with the impression that again the CPS felt the media should not be trusted with information ahead of trial.
This runs contrary to recommendations from the Nicola Bulley review in November 2023 which found the ‘wider relationship between the police and the media to be fractured’ and identified that ‘action needs to be taken on all sides to help build trust’. The College of Policing review highlighted the deterioration in communication between police forces and mainstream media in recent years, in particular fewer background briefings by the police and the dangerous rise of social media commentators to fill the information vacuum.
The CRA has heard concerns from several forces who feel they cannot move forward with the recommendations of the review due to the CPS preventing police briefings taking place and seeking to censor press officers who cannot even offer guidance to reporters due to CPS insistence on the control of information.
Yesterday the CPS prevented Merseyside Police from publishing their pre-trial briefing on Axel Rudakubana following his guilty pleas. There was no legal reason for doing so given that his conviction meant there was no contempt risk. The CPS warned that ‘reporting or releasing information which hasn’t been put before the court risks pre-judging facts which may inform the sentence handed down.’ But the judiciary cannot be prejudiced by a news story. The Judicial Office says judges ‘must not allow potential public or media responses to skew their decision-making’. The CPS referred to the custom of a judge only revealing the full facts for the first time in a sentencing hearing. But this should not be a justification for withholding information from the public once a defendant has pleaded guilty to all the charges.
As Chair of the CRA, I wrote to the CPS, NPCC and CT Policing raising concerns about the unprecedented CPS intervention. I was informed that the DPP was concerned with propriety as the full facts had not been opened by a court. In short, it was feared the CPS may be ‘told off’ by the judge for a procedural irregularity. The CRA believes that this decision was contrary to open justice principles and risked fuelling a dangerous narrative of cover-up and conspiracy, which had previously fanned the flames of disorder. Given the highly sensitive nature of the case, police were desperate to explain in full their commendable efforts to investigate Rudakubana, his background and why decisions were taken about charges. Instead, the force was effectively gagged. Officers felt that they had been denied that opportunity to reveal the full facts to the public and provide vital reassurance that this was not a cover-up. As a measure of the force’s frustration, the Chief Constable Serena Kennedy released an unprecedented statement revealing the force’s efforts to be open and transparent had been constrained by the CPS: “From day one we have been as open as we possibly could and have constantly been in touch with the CPS who have advised us on what information could be released. We have wanted to say much more to show we were being open and transparent, but we have been advised throughout that we couldn’t do so as it would risk justice being delivered.”
Head of Counter Terrorism Policing Matt Jukes also felt the need to issue a statement revealing the heavy hand of the CPS in the release of information: ‘Information about these referrals have not been withheld due to any lack of candour. We have taken advice from the Crown Prosecution Service on what information could be released and when, so as not to risk justice being delivered.’
It is no coincidence that reactions from almost every politician to the guilty pleas yesterday focused on the release of information. The CRA believes there has been a significant overreach by the CPS in this case which has fuelled a cover-up narrative.
The CRA is concerned that the unprecedented decision to bar the media from reporting the Rudakubana police briefing until sentence will have a chilling effect on police and press relations. The Home Secretary later referred to some of the details from the police briefing in Parliament today, making a mockery of the CPS restriction. Given the social media speculation in this case, the potential for the extreme right wing to capitalise on concerns of a cover-up and a conspiracy of silence, with all the potential implications for disorder and public safety, I found it staggering that the Director of Public Prosecutions sought to prioritise propriety in the circumstances, given the absence of any legal reasons to restrict the publication of information to the public. At what cost?
Arguably, the history of this case demonstrates that the cost has been significant. The withholding of information has not only damaged police and press relations, opportunities have been missed to quell violence and fundamentally this has undermined public confidence and trust in policing and the wider criminal justice system.
Rebecca Camber
Chair of the Crime Reporters Association
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
