The strong case for anonymity on arrest

Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini, who last week told MPs and peers about their ordeals when they were named as sex crime suspects. ‘I believe that people should not be named on arrest save in exceptional ­circumstances,’ writes former chief constable Andrew Trotter. Photograph: Steve Paston/PA

Laura Bates’ article (Extending anonymity to sexual crime suspects is a bad idea – here’s why, 18 October) misses the point. The naming of people on arrest rarely helps the investigation and frequently damages the reputations of people who are not subsequently charged.

I wrote the current police guidance on this matter, gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and carried out the investigation into the South Yorkshire police handling of the search of Sir Cliff Richard’s apartment, and I was on the panel at the House of Lords last Monday with Sir Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini and Lady Brittan.

I believe that people should not be named on arrest save in exceptional circumstances: for example, where there is a threat to life, to prevent or detect crime or where there is some overriding public interest. Decisions on these matters should no longer be left to the police or the media but should go in front of a judge.
Andrew Trotter
Former chief constable, British Transport Police, and national lead on police and the media, Association of Chief Police Officers

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com