Category: Police

Police articles and analysis.

Categories
Criminal Justice Legal Analysis Police

What is Two Tier Policing ?

Two Tier Policing

The BBC describes so-called “two-tier policing” as where right-wing protests are considered to be dealt with more harshly than left-wing ones by the police. This explanation is simply not true.

The most simplistic and accurate explanation of two tier policing is that there’s one rule for one person and another rule for another. The publicly shown bias and discrimination by the Police is manifesting itself irrespective of politics, sexuality, race or colour.

The police should and must operate independently under the law without fear or favour. The Rule of Law applies to everyone regardless of who they are. Policing in this country and around the world is by consent. There should no bias by the police or by anyone in the justice system.

Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

The debate over two-tiered policing has significant implications for public trust in law enforcement. If the perception of biased policing persists, it can erode confidence in the police and exacerbate social divisions. On the other hand, dismissing legitimate concerns about unequal treatment can also harm community relations and hinder efforts to address systemic issues within law enforcement.

Two-tiered policing remains a contentious issue, with strong arguments on both sides. While some see it as a reflection of systemic biases within law enforcement, others view it as a necessary differentiation based on the nature of the protests or other lawlessness.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is crucial to continue scrutinising police practices to ensure fairness and accountability in all aspects of law enforcement.

The State of Policing Report 2022 and the Loss of Public Trust by HMICFRS said amongst other things “The public’s trust and confidence are unacceptably low. The fundamental principle of policing by consent, upon which the service is built, is at risk.”

What is Policing by Consent ?

The discussion of #TwoTierPolicing #TwoTierJustice and #TwoTierKeir along with Free Speech is very much alive on X.

Sir Keir Starmer stated “there is no two-tier policing“ and said it is a “non-issue”.

Elon Musk calls out Sir Keir Starmer as #TwoTierKeir

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has called accusations of two-tier policing “complete nonsense”.

They are hardly going to agree that there is Two Tier Policing ?! Maybe the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) should investigate ? Is the accusation of Police bias worthy of Judicial Review ?

Do you have evidence of two tier policing by the Met Police, West Midlands Police or any other UK police forces ? Contact Us

Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley demonstrates violent thuggery and Two Tiered Policing without Fear or Favour.
Superintendent Emlyn Richards of West Midlands Police explains Two Tier Policing in simple language.
The Guardian have been telling people about two-tier policing based on race and sexuality for decades

Police told 'DON'T treat Brits the same' as protest FURY erupts over Henry Nowak 'two-tier' murder

Labour have promised to review and change police guidance that was issued in 2022, telling officers their commitment to racial ...
Police told 'DON'T treat Brits the same' as protest FURY erupts over Henry Nowak 'two-tier' murder
Police told 'DON'T treat Brits the same' as protest FURY erupts over Henry Nowak 'two-tier' murder
Labour have promised to review and change police guidance that was ...
Henry Nowak: The murder that exposed Britain's broken two-tier justice system | The Daily T
Henry Nowak: The murder that exposed Britain's broken two-tier justice system | The Daily T
Camilla Tominey and Tim Stanley examine the harrowing details and ...
Ex-Police Officer QUITS in disgust and reveals the shocking truth about two-tier policing in UK.
Ex-Police Officer QUITS in disgust and reveals the shocking truth about two-tier policing in UK.
Ex-Police Officer QUITS in disgust and reveals the shocking truth ...
"TAKE SOME ACTION!" - Nigel Farage URGES Keir Starmer to sort out the TWO-TIER policing
"TAKE SOME ACTION!" - Nigel Farage URGES Keir Starmer to sort out the TWO-TIER policing
"Take some action!" Watch as Nigel Farage causes a stir in the House ...
'GASLIGHTING US!' | Patrick Christys settles Britain's two-tier policing row with GLARING examples
'GASLIGHTING US!' | Patrick Christys settles Britain's two-tier policing row with GLARING examples
Following Keir Starmer's refusal acknowledge to Reform UK Leader Nigel ...
'Two-tier politicians EXPOSED' after Bulgarian schoolgirl attackers in viral axe video found guilty
'Two-tier politicians EXPOSED' after Bulgarian schoolgirl attackers in viral axe video found guilty
To find out more about a simpler way to go, click the link ...

Check out our related articles on Policing by Consent, Thought Police, Sussex Police, Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner Sussex Police, , What is a Police and Crime Commissioner and a Police and Crime Panel ?, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Innocent until Proven Guilty, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Police

Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

Handcuffs are a standard restraint tool used by police officers across the United Kingdom to help maintain control, prevent escape, protect the public, or reduce the immediate risk of harm.

Any intentional application of force to the person of another is an assault.
The use of handcuffs amounts to such an assault and is unlawful unless it can be justified.
Justification is achieved through establishing not only a legal right to use handcuffs, but also good objective grounds for doing so in order to show that what the officer did was a reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of force

College of Policing – Handcuffing Module Personal Safety

The use of handcuffs is not automatic and is strictly governed by the legal requirement that any force must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and subject to continuous review.

Legal Basis

There is no dedicated legislation that deals solely with handcuffs. Their use is authorised under general provisions governing the use of force.

Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that a person may use “such force as is reasonable in the circumstances” in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of an offender or suspected offender.

Section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) permits a constable to use reasonable force when exercising powers conferred by the Act, including powers of arrest.

Applying handcuffs constitutes a trespass to the person (technically an assault or battery) unless it is justified by these provisions.

Officers must have an objective, reasonable belief that the individual presents a risk of escape, violence towards officers or others, self-harm, or damage to property. Routine handcuffing, for example during every stop-and-search or low-level arrest, is not permitted. The individual police officer remains personally accountable for the decision.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is engaged where prolonged or unjustified restraint occurs. Unnecessary handcuffing may breach Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) or Article 5 (right to liberty and security). Courts judge reasonableness on the basis of the information available to the officer at the time, not with the benefit of hindsight.

College of Policing and Force Guidance

The College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Personal Safety and Use of Force requires officers to assess each situation individually. Relevant risk factors include the person’s behaviour, demeanour, level of intoxication, known medical conditions and any available intelligence regarding previous violence.

The Metropolitan Police Service Handcuffing procedures – Policy and Handcuffing procedures – Policy FAQ, released under Freedom of Information, makes clear that “the justification to handcuff a person is a use of force and it is up to the officer to justify his/her reasons for handcuffing.” Key procedural requirements include:

  • Double-locking the cuffs to prevent overtightening;
  • Regular checks for circulation and signs of distress;
  • Removal as soon as the risk has sufficiently subsided;
  • Particular caution with vulnerable groups (children, elderly, pregnant individuals, or those with visible injuries or medical conditions).

Rigid “speedcuffs” are the standard issue in most UK forces. They are usually applied with hands behind the back for high-risk subjects.

Body-worn video is routinely used to capture both the decision and the application, supporting accountability. Similar risk-based principles apply in all UK police forces.

The Henry Nowak Case

The death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak in Southampton on the 3rd December 2025 highlighted the critical importance of accurate scene assessment when using handcuffs.

Henry Nowak, a first-year Polish-born finance student at the University of Southampton, was stabbed five times by 23-year-old Vickrum Digwa using a 21 cm (approximately 8-inch) Sikh kirpan ceremonial knife. One wound to the chest was fatal. Digwa chased the unarmed Nowak before the attack.

When Hampshire Police officers arrived in the Portswood area, Vickrum Digwa falsely claimed that Nowak had racially abused him and started a fight.

Officers, acting on this information, treated Nowak as the suspect, handcuffed him, and arrested him while he was bleeding. Body-worn camera footage later showed Nowak repeatedly telling officers he had been stabbed and that he could not breathe. He pleaded for help. The handcuffs were removed only after he collapsed. First aid was attempted, but he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Newly released footage shows the teenager saying four times, ‘I’ve been stabbed’, to which one policeman replies, ‘I don’t think you have mate’.

Officers pull Mr Nowak along the ground as he continues to beg for help, telling them he cannot breathe at least seven times before he is ordered to place his hands in the cuffs.

The injured student was then arrested as he lay dying on the ground, drowning in his own blood.

Moment Henry Died Alone – Daily Mail

Following his conviction for murder at Southampton Crown Court, Vickrum Singh Digwa was sentenced on the 1st June 2026 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years by His Honour Judge William Mousley KC, the Honorary Recorder of Southampton and Resident Judge.

Police officers honestly believed that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Henry had committed an offence and arrested him with the consequence he was handcuffed for about a minute before his condition further deteriorated and the arresting officer began CPR.

Judge William Mousley KC sentencing remarks in the case of The King v Vickrum Singh Digwa
Statement from DCC Robert France after man convicted of murdering student Henry Nowak in Southampton

“I am really sorry that Henry was arrested and handcuffed just before he lost consciousness.”

Temporary Deputy Chief Constable Robert France of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary Apology

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is independently investigating the officers’ actions, including the decision to handcuff, the assessment of his injuries, and the first aid provided. Officers are currently treated as witnesses. Nowak’s family, including his father Mark, has called for a “full, fearless and transparent” investigation, stating that Henry “did not die with dignity.”

On the 15th June 2026, The Solicitor General Ellie Reeves KC referred the sentence of Vickrum Digwa, convicted of the murder of Henry Nowak, to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

Training and Accountability

Officers receive regular conflict management training that includes restraint techniques, de-escalation, and situational awareness. Handcuffing forms part of personal protective equipment (PPE) programmes. Misuse can lead to internal misconduct proceedings, IOPC investigation, civil claims for assault or false imprisonment, and, in the most serious cases, criminal liability.

What is Two Tier Policing ?

Conclusion

Handcuffs remain a lawful and often essential tool in modern policing when used correctly. UK law and policy rightly demand individual risk assessment rather than blanket application.

The tragic death of Henry Nowak illustrates the immense difficulty officers can face when dealing with fast-moving incidents involving conflicting accounts and life-threatening injuries. It also reinforces the need for continual training, effective scene management and public confidence in policing decisions made under pressure.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Professional Standards, Police Misconduct Hearings, Police Impartiality, Police Surveillance, Are the Police for Hire ?, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC),Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Police

Police Barred and Advisory Lists

Police Barred and Advisory Lists

The police barred and advisory lists, which are managed by the College of Policing, were introduced under the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017. They record officers, special constables, and police staff who have been dismissed for serious misconduct or performance failings.

These Regulations are made under Part 4A of the Police Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”), which was inserted by section 30 of, and Schedule 8 to, the Policing and Crime Act 2017. Part 4A of the 1996 Act requires the College of Policing to maintain two lists; the police barred list (see section 88B) and the police advisory list (see section 88J). These Regulations are made under various powers in Part 4A to make provision supplementing the regime established under that Part.

Explanatory Note – Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017

Working alongside the advisory list, it prevents unsuitable individuals from re-entering policing roles while enhancing transparency and public trust.

Purpose and Background

The barred and advisory lists were established as part of the government’s commitment to raising standards in policing. They increase accountability for those dismissed and make the discipline system more transparent by publishing details where appropriate.

Both lists are administered by the College of Policing, which receives reports from forces following dismissals under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and Police (Performance) Regulations 2020.

Individuals remain on the barred list indefinitely unless they successfully appeal their dismissal or have their case reviewed after the minimum waiting period. This framework deters poor behaviour and supports a culture of high professional standards.

What the Police Barred List Contains

The barred list includes all officers, special constables, and staff dismissed after formal investigations. For public entries – primarily conduct-related dismissals of warranted officers and special constables – the College publishes the individual’s name, former force, rank, number, date of dismissal, and reason for dismissal.

Police staff and PCSOs appear on an internal version but are not published publicly. The College decides on publication after considering national security, ongoing investigations, or potential harm to individuals. In the vast majority of cases, details are made public.

Public Access and Updates

The police public barred list is searchable and updated monthly, with new names added by the end of the month following dismissal. Entries remain visible for five years from the date of publication before automatic removal from the public version (though the internal record continues).

Dismissals for gross incompetence follow a three-year public visibility period in some contexts, aligned with review rules.

The Advisory List

The advisory list covers individuals who resigned, retired, or left during an investigation, or before allegations came to light. It also includes volunteers whose designated status was withdrawn for conduct or performance reasons. There is no public access to this list.

Forces must consult the advisory list during vetting. While it does not automatically bar employment, hiring organisations must carefully consider the information as part of the recruitment and vetting process.

How the Lists Are Used

All Home Office police forces in England and Wales, Offices of Police and Crime Commissioners, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct are required to check both lists before appointing or employing anyone.

Anyone on the barred list must not be employed in policing roles.

Reviews and Removal from the Barred List

Barred individuals may apply for a review after three years for gross incompetence dismissals or five years for gross misconduct dismissals. Applications are submitted by email to the College of Policing with supporting evidence. The relevant force provides a recommendation, but the College makes the final decision.

Reviews consider the individual’s current suitability, the original circumstances, and the potential impact on public confidence. A successful review does not guarantee re-employment; the applicant must still apply for a role and pass full vetting. The process does not re-examine the original dismissal.

Impact on Policing

By publicly recording dismissals and preventing re-entry of unsuitable personnel, the barred list plays a significant role in maintaining discipline and rebuilding public confidence. Annual statistics published by the College show hundreds of officers added each year, demonstrating the system’s active use.

Overall, the barred and advisory lists represent a balanced approach with firm accountability combined with a structured route for rehabilitation where appropriate.

Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Professional Standards, Police Misconduct Hearings, Police Impartiality, Police Surveillance, Are the Police for Hire ?, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC),Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

Dodgy Magistrates (JP)
Dodgy Judges

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Police

Is Crimestoppers Anonymous ?

Crimestoppers

Crimestoppers is widely promoted as the United Kingdom’s leading provider of anonymous crime reporting. The charity asserts on its website that individuals who submit information, whether online or by telephone, benefit from “100% anonymity”.

Your anonymity is 100% guaranteed. We are not interested in who you are, only what you know, so the more detail you give us the better. 

Your computer and mobile phone IP addresses cannot be tracked or saved. It’s completely anonymous

Crimestoppers – Give information anonymously

However, questions have been raised about whether this assurance is fully justified.

An independent investigator and YouTuber known as Crimebodge has conducted a detailed examination of these claims.

In a video released on the 21st April 2026, titled I Tested Crimestoppers’ ‘100% Anonymity’ – They FAILED, he systematically tests the service’s safeguards and identifies several technical and procedural shortcomings that may leave users of Crimestoppers less protected than they have been led to believe.

I Tested Crimestoppers’ “100% Anonymity” – They FAILED

Crimestoppers Online Reporting System

Approximately 80 percent of reports to Crimestoppers are now submitted via its website. While the platform states that it masks IP addresses and does not retain personal data, the investigation reveals a more complex picture.

Report crime anonymously to Crimestoppers
Online – crimestoppers-uk.org
By phone – 0800 555 111

How to report a crime – Police.uk

Analysis of the site shows that it activates 16 third-party trackers before a report is even submitted. These include services from Google, Meta (Facebook), LinkedIn, Snapchat, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), Stack Adapt, and Hotjar. Data collected can include:

  • IP addresses
  • Geolocation information
  • Browser fingerprints
  • User interaction patterns (such as mouse movements and keystrokes)

The Hotjar tool, in particular, is capable of recording complete user sessions, including content typed into forms. Social media login options further increase the risk of linking activity to identifiable profiles. Notably, privacy notices and cookie consent mechanisms frequently load after many of these trackers have already activated.

The website is also protected by Imperva, a service whose administrators have potential access to raw server logs, including IP data. As a result, the online portal may not offer the level of anonymity that is publicly advertised.

Crimestoppers Telephone Reporting

Crimestoppers maintains that telephone calls are not recorded and that caller numbers are withheld. Nevertheless, several practical vulnerabilities remain:

  • Telecommunications providers routinely retain call metadata, which can be accessed by law enforcement.
  • The use of 141 to withhold caller ID is widely known and may itself attract attention.
  • The 1471 service can often reveal the last caller on landlines.
  • In cases involving serious allegations or potential misuse, police have confirmed they will not always uphold anonymity.

Report crime anonymously to Crimestoppers
Online – crimestoppers-uk.org
By phone – 0800 555 111

If you’re concerned your call could be traced, dial 141 before 0800 555 111, this will block your phone number. 

How to report a crime – Police.uk

The organisation’s policy also reserves the right to assist police in identifying individuals who submit reports deemed to be malicious which is a definition that allows considerable discretion.

Effectiveness and Value of Crimestoppers

Crimestoppers’ own published figures, referenced in the investigation, indicate limited outcomes:

  • 75 percent of all reports are discarded without any police follow-up.
  • Only one in nine reports passed to police results in a tangible outcome.

These statistics suggest that a significant proportion of individuals who submit information may be exposing themselves to potential identification for little discernible public benefit.

Implications of Crimestoppers Anonymity Claims

The investigation does not oppose the principle of anonymous crime reporting. Instead, it highlights the importance of accurate information regarding the actual protections in place. Members of the public who rely on Crimestoppers’ assurances may inadvertently leave digital traces that could later be traced, particularly in high-profile or contentious cases.

The video concludes by recommending that individuals educate themselves about their rights when interacting with law enforcement, rather than depending solely on official channels.

Crimebodge refers readers to his publication, Copper Stopper: How to Protect Yourself From Law Enforcement, available in both paperback and digital formats.

Conclusion

While Crimestoppers undoubtedly provides a valuable public service, its repeated emphasis on “100% anonymity” appears overly optimistic and potentially misleading.

In an environment of widespread digital surveillance and data collection, genuine anonymity demands robust technical measures, transparent limitations, and clear disclaimers.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Professional Standards, Police Misconduct Hearings, Police Impartiality, Police Surveillance, Are the Police for Hire ?, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC),Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Police

National Firearms Amnesty

Firearms Amnesty 2026

Police forces across the country are taking part in a four-week Firearms Amnesty for five types of BRUNI-manufactured side / top-venting blank firers  (TVBFs) which are now illegal to possess following testing by the National Crime Agency and policing.  

The amnesty takes place between February 2nd and 27th 2026, after which anyone in possession of one of the specified TVBFs could be subject to prosecution and up to 10 years’ imprisonment.  

Owners of these TVBFs are being forewarned ahead of the law change, however, and will be given the chance to surrender these weapons to the police without fear of prosecution. 

During the amnesty period, those handing in a BRUNI TVBFs will not face prosecution for the illegal possession and will not have to give their details. However, the history of any live firearms handed in will be checked for evidence  of its use in crime. 

What are TVBFs? 

Top/side venting blank firers (TVBFs) are legal to buy in the UK without a licence by over 18s unless they are readily convertible. Tests by the National Crime Agency and policing have shown that the following BRUNI models are readily convertible and are therefore illegal:  

  • 8mm PAK Bruni BBM New Police blank firing self-loading pistol 
  • 8mm PAK Bruni BBM Model 96 blank firing self-loading pistol 
  • 8mm PAK Bruni BBM Model ‘GAP’ blank firing self-loading pistol 
  • .380R (9mmK) PAK Bruni BBM ME Ranger single-action blank firing revolver 

In their original state TVBFs have a fully blocked barrel designed to discharge only blank cartridges. When discharged, combustion gases vent from the top of the weapon. TVBFs are sold with at least 50 per cent of their visible surface painted a bright colour. However, as well as converting them from blank firers to live firearms, criminals may also paint them black, so they look like an original lethal purpose (OLP) weapon. 

Check out the article on the Firearms Amnesty 2025

Why the Amnesty?

The primary aim of this amnesty is to remove these potentially dangerous weapons from the public domain, reducing the risk they pose when falling into the wrong hands. According to the NPCC, while gun crime in the UK remains relatively low compared to other countries, the conversion of these blank-firing guns into lethal weapons presents a significant emerging threat. Since 2021, over 800 converted TVBFs have been recovered in criminal circumstances, highlighting the urgency of this initiative.

How the Gun Amnesty Works

During the amnesty period, individuals who possess any of these four models can surrender them at local police stations without facing prosecution for the illegal possession of these now-banned firearms. This leniency is intended to encourage those who might have these guns for legitimate, non-criminal purposes to hand them over.

The guns will not only be removed from circulation but will also be analysed to see if they have been involved in previous criminal acts, thereby potentially aiding in ongoing investigations.

Public Response and Implications

The response from the public has been cautiously optimistic. Many see this amnesty as a chance to rectify unintended possession of these newly classified illegal firearms. There’s an acknowledgment among communities that while these guns might have been bought legally or even as souvenirs from trips, their potential for misuse is now too significant to ignore.

Law enforcement officials, including Assistant Chief Constable Tim Metcalfe, the NPCC Lead for the Criminal Use of Firearms, have stressed the importance of public cooperation. “This initiative is about protecting our communities by ensuring these firearms don’t end up being used for criminal intent,” Metcalfe stated. “We urge anyone with these weapons to do the responsible thing and surrender them.”

Legal Implications Post Amnesty

Post-amnesty, the possession of these TVBFs will be strictly prohibited, with severe penalties including up to 10 years in prison for those caught with one. This crackdown is part of broader efforts by UK law enforcement to control the proliferation of firearms and reduce gun-related crimes.

The amnesty also serves as a reminder of the broader issue of firearm conversion in the UK, prompting discussions on the need for tighter regulations on the import and sale of blank-firing guns and other similar devices.

Check out our articles on Policing, Police News, Policing by Consent, Two Tiered Policing, Wasting Police Time, Met Police, Sussex Police, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Law Police

Sack Chief Constable Craig Guildford ?

Craig Guildford Chief Constable

In the United Kingdom, chief constables hold one of the most senior positions in policing, leading territorial police forces and bearing ultimate responsibility for operational decisions.

Their role is pivotal in maintaining public safety, upholding the law and ensuring accountability.

However, when performance falters or controversies arise, mechanisms exist to hold them to account, including dismissal.

This article explores the procedures for dismissing a chief constable, drawing on relevant legislation and safeguards, and examines the high-profile case involving Craig Guildford Chief Constable of West Midlands Police.

The disgraced chief constable of West Midlands Police Craig Guildford retired on the 16th January 2026 with a full pension after eventually giving in to mounting calls to quit over the Maccabi Tel Aviv fan ban. 

The Legal Framework

The primary legislation governing the appointment and removal of chief constables is the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

This Act established Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) who are elected officials tasked with overseeing police forces in England and Wales (with equivalent arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland under different structures).

Under Section 38(3) of the Act, a PCC has the authority to call upon a chief constable to resign or retire.

This power is not absolute; it must be exercised reasonably and fairly, in line with public law principles.

Historically, the Home Secretary had limited direct involvement in such matters, but recent developments have expanded this role.

In January 2026, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans to introduce new statutory powers allowing the Home Secretary to force the retirement, resignation, or suspension of chief constables on performance grounds.

This move aims to address perceived gaps in accountability, particularly in cases where local oversight may be insufficient.

The Policing Protocol Order 2011 further outlines the relationships between PCCs, chief constables, and other bodies, emphasising that while chief constables retain operational independence, PCCs are responsible for holding them accountable.

Dismissal is typically pursued for reasons such as misconduct, poor performance, or loss of public confidence.

The Step-by-Step Process for Dismissal

Dismissing a chief constable is a structured process designed to ensure fairness and transparency. It cannot be done arbitrarily and involves multiple stakeholders.

Here is an overview of the key steps, based on Regulation 11A of the Police Regulations 2003 (as amended):

  1. Initiation by the PCC: The process begins when the PCC proposes to call upon the chief constable to resign or retire. They must provide a written explanation of the reasons, which could include failures in leadership, operational mishandlings, or ethical breaches.
  2. Consultation with His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMCIC): The PCC must obtain written views from HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary and have regard to them. This independent assessment helps evaluate the validity of the concerns.
  3. Notification and Response: The chief constable is notified and given the opportunity to make written representations. Copies of the HMCIC views and the PCC’s explanation are provided to both the chief constable and the local Police and Crime Panel (PCP).
  4. Role of the Police and Crime Panel: The PCP, composed of local councillors and independent members, reviews the proposal. They must make a recommendation within six weeks, either supporting or opposing the dismissal, and may consult HMIC. While the PCC is not bound by the PCP’s view, they must consider it. bbc.com The PCP also has veto powers in certain appointment processes, underscoring their scrutiny role.
  5. Final Decision and Suspension: If the PCC proceeds, they issue the call to resign or retire. In urgent cases, the chief constable can be suspended pending the outcome, but this requires similar consultations. publications.parliament.uk The chief executive of the PCC’s office is notified throughout.
  6. Appeals and Judicial Review: A chief constable can challenge the decision through judicial review if they believe it was irrational, unfair, or unlawful. Past cases, such as the reinstatement of Lincolnshire’s chief constable in 2013, highlight how courts can intervene.

With the impending Home Secretary powers, Home Secretary to introduce power to sack chief constables, an additional layer may allow direct intervention, bypassing or supplementing the PCC process in national interest cases.

Safeguards and Challenges

These procedures include built-in safeguards to prevent misuse of power. The involvement of HMCIC and the PCP ensures independent oversight, while the requirement for written explanations promotes transparency.

However, critics argue that the system can be politicised, as PCCs are elected and may face pressures from public opinion or party lines. The government’s defence is that these checks balance accountability with fairness.

Craig Guildford and West Midlands Police

A recent example of this process was the controversy surrounding Craig Guildford, who had been Chief Constable of West Midlands Police since December 2022.

Craig Guildford, who previously led Nottinghamshire Police, has faced intense scrutiny following a decision to ban fans of Israeli club Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending a Europa League match against Aston Villa in November 2025.

A damning report by Sir Andy Cooke QPM DL HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Inspection of police forces’ contributions to safety advisory groups: West Midlands Police, found that the ban was based on “exaggerated and untrue” intelligence, including evidence possibly generated by AI, which Craig Guildford later apologised for presenting to MPs.

The report criticised the force’s handling, leading Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to declare on the 14th January 2026 that she had “lost confidence” in Guildford.

This sentiment was echoed by Downing Street the following day, with No 10 stating it “no longer has confidence” in him.

Politicians from across the spectrum have called for his resignation or dismissal, describing his continued tenure as “astonishing.”

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is now considering an investigation using special powers.

On the 16th January 2026 the disgraced chief constable of West Midlands Police Craig Guildford retired with a full pension.

The Chief Constable, Craig Guildford, has today retired from West Midlands Police with immediate effect. In doing so, he has acted with honour and in the best interests of West Midlands Police and our region. I welcome his decision.

I am pleased this outcome has been reached having regard to due process and the law. That has prevented what might otherwise have been a complex procedure, that would have caused significant distraction, impact and cost to West Midlands Police and the wider West Midlands. It was important this matter was resolved in a balanced, calm, fair, measured and respectful manner.

West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Foster – Chief Constable Craig Guildford retires

Craig Guildford’s brief retirement in November 2024 to safeguard his pension before reappointment has drawn further criticism.

In November 2024, he retired as Chief Constable of West Midlands Police for one month in order to protect his pension, which would otherwise have fallen in value after 30 years’ unbroken service, before taking up the post again. Scott Green served as Acting Chief Constable in the interim.

Chief Constable Craig Guildford West Midlands Police – Wikipedia

Image of Craig Guildford Chief Constable of West Midlands Police – Richard Vernalls/PA and Grok AI

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Professional Standards, Police Misconduct Hearings, Police Impartiality, Police Surveillance, Are the Police for Hire ?, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC),Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Free Speech Government Law Legal Analysis Police

Think Before You Post !

Think Before You Post - Free Speech

The United Kingdom has long been hailed as a cornerstone of democratic values but recent trends in policing suggest a troubling erosion of free speech. This concern is explored in a Spiked Online 43-minute documentary, Think Before You Post which was released on the 27th October 2025.

Think Before You Post | How the UK fell to a sinister new form of censorship | FULL DOCUMENTARY – Spiked

The film investigates how the UK has increasingly criminalised online speech over the past six decades, using personal accounts and expert commentary to illustrate the impact. It focuses on the aftermath of the 2024 riots, where social media posts led to arrests without direct incitement to violence.

The documentary’s title references the government’s advisory during the riots: “Think before you post” which was employed to caution users against potential prosecution for content deemed hateful.

Think Before You Post – Gov.uk

Overview of the Documentary

The film begins with footage from the 2024 Southport riots, which followed a stabbing incident at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class on 29 July 2024, perpetrated by Axel Rudakubana, a 17-year-old British-born individual of Rwandan heritage.

The attack resulted in the deaths of three young girls Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice da Silva Aguiar along with injuries to eight other children and two adults. This event prompted widespread disorder, exacerbated by online misinformation falsely claiming the attacker was a Muslim migrant.

The documentary details the government’s response, which included not only managing physical unrest but also intensifying scrutiny of online content. It states that approximately 30 individuals are arrested each day in England and Wales for offences related to social media, such as inciting racial or religious hatred or sending communications considered grossly offensive.

Using Home Office figures, the film compares the UK’s more than 12,000 arrests for speech-related matters in 2023 to Russia’s 3,319, highlighting a contrast between a democratic nation and an authoritarian one in terms of regulating expression.

The investigation references legislation including the Race Relations Act 1965 and the Communications Act 2003, which provide a framework for such prosecutions. It notes that while conviction rates are typically around 10%, the process of arrest and investigation often acts as a deterrent to public discussion.

Key Cases and Personal Stories

The documentary presents several cases to demonstrate the application of these laws. Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, a couple from Buckinghamshire, describe their arrest in January 2025 after an online disagreement with their daughter’s school concerning a headteacher’s appointment.

They were charged with harassment and malicious communications for messages that included describing a teacher as a ‘control freak’. Six police officers arrived at their home, leading to their detention, fingerprinting, and DNA sampling.

Hertfordshire Police said the arrests “were necessary to fully investigate the allegations” but the charges were eventually discontinued due to insufficient evidence, but the experience caused considerable stress, particularly for their daughter who has epilepsy.

Journalist Allison Pearson recounts her investigation for inciting racial hatred following a 2023 tweet about police conduct during an anti-Israel demonstration. Essex Police visited her home on Remembrance Sunday 2024, and although the case was later dropped, she highlights the intrusive nature of the process.

Former Royal Marine Jamie Michael discusses his arrest in July 2024 for a Facebook video expressing views on illegal immigration and child safety after the Southport incident. Despite no advocacy for violence, he was held in custody for 17 days and electronically tagged before being acquitted. The report originated from a Labour politician’s office.

The film also covers the case of Lucy Connolly, a 41-year-old former childminder from Northampton, arrested in August 2024 for a tweet responding to the Southport stabbings: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it.”

Charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 for publishing material to stir up racial hatred, she pleaded guilty and received a 31-month prison sentence from His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman in October 2024. She served about nine months before release on licence in August 2025, following an unsuccessful appeal in May 2025.

Other examples include a 16-year-old autistic girl arrested for likening a police officer to her ‘lesbian nana’, and Harry Miller whose tweet on transgender issues prompted police to suggest he ‘check his thinking’, a decision later ruled unlawful.

Expert Analysis and Broader Themes

Experts in the documentary provide context. Lord Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, states that police priorities have shifted towards recording ‘non-crime hate incidents’ rather than addressing actual crimes.

He refers to ‘two-tier policing‘, where certain expressions, such as those on immigration, are targeted to preserve social order.

Solicitor Luke Gittos examines the 60-year history of hate speech legislation, noting the ambiguity in definitions that allows for variable enforcement. He argues for addressing offensive ideas through discussion rather than legal action and points out the lack of entrenched free speech rights in UK law.

The film discusses a move towards preventive policing, with social media surveillance used to avert potential disorder. It connects this to societal trends, including identity politics and the Online Safety Act 2023, which requires platforms to remove content under regulatory oversight.

The Irony of Self-Censorship

Upon its release on X, the documentary encountered restrictions under the UK’s Online Safety Act, which reduced its visibility.

Spiked reported this in an article on their website “Our documentary about censorship is being censored Thanks to the Online Safety Act, X has muzzled Think Before You Post“.

Conclusion

Think Before You Post documents the implications of criminalising speech in the UK, using individual cases and data to highlight the scale of arrests. It suggests a need to review current laws to protect democratic discourse.

With 59,095 views on YouTube and 334,439 views on X as of the 30th October 2025, the film has prompted discussion among the public and officials about balancing regulation with freedom of expression.

You may wish to consider joining and supporting The Free Speech Union(FSU). The FSU has silver and gold membership with monthly or annual payments options.

Check out our related articles on the Free Speech Union, Free Speech and the Law, Judiciary, Policing, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Law Police

National Hate Crime Awareness Week

National Hate Crime Awareness Week

National Hate Crime Awareness Week (NHCAW) 2025 starts on the 11th October 2025. This week-long campaign, organised by the 17-24-30 charity, calls on communities, organisations and individuals to confront the scourge of hate crime head-on.

Founded by Mark Healey and Ryan Perkins in 2009 to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 1999 London nail bombings, a series of far-right terrorist attacks by neo-Nazi David Copeland, targeting Black, Bangladeshi, and LGBTQ+ communities that claimed three lives and injured over 140 people.

At its core, NHCAW operates under the H.O.P.E. framework: Highlighting the impact of hate crimes, Optimising operational responses from police and councils, Preventing future incidents through education, and Engaging affected communities in solutions.

Sussex Police are taking part in National Hate Crime Awareness Week 2025 which starts on Saturday 11th October.

A hate crime is when someone commits a crime which is motivated by hostility or prejudice based on the victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity, or any other perceived difference.

Policing teams and partners across the force will carry out engagements with partner agencies and talks and visits to schools and universities, as officers look to educate and ensure our communities know if they are affected by hate crime and how to report it.

Chief Superintendent Nick Dias, force lead for Hate Crime, said: “We work extremely hard as a force to raise awareness of what hate crime is, and to give victims the confidence to come forward to report it.

“We understand the huge impact it can have on individual victims and wider communities across Sussex and in the country. There have been recent incidents both locally and nationally which have caused concern.

“It’s vital that hate crimes and incidents of that nature are reported so that we can support those affected and look to bring the offenders to justice.

“Throughout the week, we are working with our partners and holding events where you can come and talk to us and find out more about the work we’re doing. But our work doesn’t stop there, we are here all year round to help keep the community safe.

“You can find where we will be and when on our social media channels so if you have any questions across the week, feel free to chat to our officers in your town or city.

“Our message is clear: Sussex Police takes a zero-tolerance approach to hate crime and there is no place for hate and division in our county.”

Sussex Police – Sussex Police takes part in National Hate Crime Awareness Week
Crawley Police World Samosa Day 2024
Chief Superintendent Nick Dias Sussex Police
Sussex Police, the King and High Sheriff

Check out our articles on National Stalking Awareness Week, Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Two Tiered Policing, Free Speech Union, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Law Legal Analysis Police

Public Interest Immunity

Public Interest Immunity

Public Interest Immunity (PII) enable UK police forces to withhold sensitive information from disclosure in legal proceedings when its release would harm the public interest.

Rooted in common law and refined by cases like Conway v Rimmer (1968), Public Interest Immunity balances the need for fair trials with the protection of critical public interests, such as informant safety or national security.

Governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) in criminal cases, Public Interest Immunity is frequently invoked by the UK police to safeguard operational integrity.

What is Public Interest Immunity ?

  • Definition: Public Interest Immunity permits the non-disclosure of documents or information in court if revealing them would damage the public interest (e.g., national security, public safety, or police operations) more than withholding them would affect justice.
  • Legal Basis: Rooted in cases like Conway v Rimmer (1968), which replaced the older “Crown Privilege” term. Governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) for criminal cases and civil procedure rules for other matters.
  • Court Oversight: Courts decide Public Interest Immunity claims through a “balancing exercise,” weighing disclosure’s benefit to justice against potential harm. Judges may review materials in camera (privately).

Police Use of Public Interest Immunity

UK police forces commonly invoke Public Interest Immunity to protect:

  • Informant Identities: To safeguard covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) whose exposure could endanger lives or deter future cooperation (e.g., in organized crime or terrorism cases).
  • Operational Methods: Details of surveillance, undercover tactics, or intelligence-gathering to prevent criminals from adapting.
  • National Security: Information linked to counter-terrorism or sensitive investigations, as seen in cases like R v Yam (2008), where parts of a trial were held in secret to protect MI5/MI6 sources.
  • Examples:
    • In terrorism trials, police may withhold intelligence reports to avoid compromising ongoing operations.
    • During the Matrix Churchill case (1990s), PII misuse to conceal arms export details led to the Scott Inquiry, prompting reforms for transparency.

In the UK, police forces submit a Public Interest Immunity (PII) claim to withhold sensitive information from disclosure in legal proceedings when its release would harm the public interest (e.g., compromising informant safety, police operations, or national security).

The process is governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) for criminal cases and civil procedure rules for other matters.

Police Criminal intelligence reports are disseminated on a 5 x 5 x 5 Information Intelligence Report Form and explicitly mention Public Interest Immunity.

“A Risk Assessment Form ‘C’ will be required in respect of the information concerned and that if it is subsequently used in court, an application for Public Interest Immunity will be sought.”

College of Policing – How to Complete a 5x5x5 Form and Relevant Supplements

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and Public Interest Immunity

CPIA Section 3 – Primary Disclosure

  • This section requires the prosecution (often working with the police) to disclose to the defence any material that might reasonably undermine the prosecution’s case or assist the defence.
  • Relevance to PII: Police must review all material gathered during an investigation. If material meets the disclosure test but is sensitive (e.g., informant identities or surveillance methods), they may consider a PII claim to withhold it.

CPIA Section 7A – Continuing Duty of Disclosure

  • This imposes an ongoing obligation on the prosecution to review and disclose relevant material throughout the proceedings.
  • Relevance to PII: If new sensitive material emerges (e.g., additional intelligence), police can initiate a PII claim at any stage, ensuring continuous assessment of public interest concerns.

CPIA Section 8 – Defence Application for Disclosure

  • Allows the defence to apply to the court for disclosure of material they believe was wrongly withheld.
  • Relevance to PII: If police claim PII, the defence can challenge it, prompting a judicial review of the claim, often in camera, to assess whether withholding is justified.

CPIA Section 14 -Public Interest Immunity Applications

  • This section specifically addresses PII, allowing the prosecution (or police via the CPS) to apply to the court to withhold material on public interest grounds.
  • Key Process: The police submit a PII application, often with a certificate or submission detailing the harm of disclosure (e.g., risk to informants or national security). The court conducts a balancing exercise, weighing public interest in non-disclosure against fair trial rights.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act Code of Practice

The CPIA Code of Practice is critical for police handling of sensitive material:

  • Paragraph 2.1: Defines sensitive material as that which, if disclosed, could harm the public interest (e.g., compromising national security, informant safety, or police operations).
  • Paragraph 6.12–6.14: Requires police to list sensitive material on a separate “sensitive schedule” (MG6D form) and notify the CPS if PII is sought. Examples include:
    • Identities of covert human intelligence sources (CHIS).
    • Details of surveillance or undercover tactics.
    • National security-related intelligence.
  • The CPS then applies for PII under Section 14, with police providing supporting evidence (e.g., a PII certificate or submission).

How do the Police Submit a Public Interest Immunity (PII) Claim ?

  1. Identify Sensitive Material:
    • During an investigation or case preparation, police identify documents or information (e.g., informant identities, surveillance methods, intelligence reports) that, if disclosed, could harm the public interest.
    • This typically arises under the CPIA, which requires police to disclose material that might assist the defense or undermine the prosecution unless PII applies.
  2. Assess Public Interest Harm:
    • Senior officers (e.g., a detective inspector or above) or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) evaluate the material to determine if disclosure would:
      • Endanger lives (e.g., informants or undercover officers).
      • Compromise ongoing investigations or operational tactics.
      • Harm national security or public safety.
    • The harm must be specific and substantial, not speculative, per cases like R v H and C (2004).
  3. Prepare the PII Application:
    • Documentation: Police compile the sensitive material and prepare a detailed justification, often in a PII certificate or written submission. This outlines:
      • The nature of the material (e.g., informant details, surveillance logs).
      • The specific public interest harm if disclosed.
      • Why alternatives (e.g., redaction, summaries) are insufficient.
    • Involvement of Senior Officials: In high-stakes cases (e.g., terrorism or national security), a minister (typically the Home Secretary) may sign the PII certificate, though police or CPS often initiate claims.
    • The application distinguishes between “contents” claims (entire document withheld) and “class” claims (category of documents, e.g., all intelligence reports, withheld).
  4. Notify the Court:
    • The police or CPS inform the court of the PII claim, usually before trial or during pre-trial disclosure hearings.
    • This is done ex parte (without the defense present) to avoid revealing the sensitive material. However, the court may later allow defense input in a limited capacity.
  5. Submit to Judicial Review:
    • The police provide the sensitive material to the court for in camera review (private examination by the judge).
    • The judge conducts a balancing exercise, weighing:
      • The public interest in non-disclosure (e.g., protecting informants).
      • The public interest in a fair trial (e.g., defense access to relevant evidence).
    • The court may request additional details from the police or CPS to justify the claim.
  6. Court Decision:
    • The judge rules on the PII claim:
      • Upheld: The material is withheld entirely or partially (e.g., redacted versions disclosed).
      • Partially Upheld: Summaries or anonymized versions may be provided to the defense.
      • Rejected: The police must disclose the material, or the prosecution may drop the case if disclosure is deemed too damaging.
    • Courts follow guidelines from cases like R v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, ex parte Wiley (1994), ensuring claims are not “lightly made.”
  7. Safeguards and Alternatives:
    • Police may propose alternatives to full non-disclosure, such as:
      • Redacting sensitive parts (e.g., names, locations).
      • Providing gist statements summarizing the material without compromising details.
    • In rare cases, special advocates (security-cleared lawyers) represent the defense’s interests in closed hearings, especially in national security cases.

Challenges and Criticisms

While PII is vital for police operations, it faces significant scrutiny. Critics argue it can undermine fair trials by restricting defence access to potentially exculpatory evidence, as highlighted in R v H and C (2004) which set stricter scrutiny standards.

The Scott Inquiry (1996), following the Matrix Churchill case, exposed PII misuse to conceal government errors, prompting reforms for transparency. Police must justify claims specifically, avoiding blanket assertions, and courts are vigilant to prevent abuse, such as hiding misconduct.

The tension between operational secrecy and open justice remains a contentious issue, with ongoing debates about proportionality and oversight.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Professionals Police

What is the Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) System ?

Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) System

The Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) is a secure group email service available to any justice organisation or practitioner that needs to send or receive sensitive information.

A typical CJSM secure email address might have the format [email protected].

CJSM has been in operation for over 20 years and enables information up to the “OFFICIAL” and “OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE” classification levels to be communicated between assured organisations, both in the public and private sector, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, victim support organisations, the police, probation, legal representatives, healthcare, private prisons and others.

The CJSM (Criminal Justice Secure eMail) service has over 660,000 users, 8,000+ organisations and handles over 50 million messages annually across the UK justice system.

It also offers:

  • a direct connection to central government departments, police and NHS
  • an onboarding and assurance process to provide high levels of security
  • the most complete directory of justice professionals
  • administration tools so organisations can manage their own users
  • a dedicated helpdesk
CJSM – Secure, seamless communication across the justice community

As of the 1st October 2025, Egress Software Technologies (often referred to as Egress Systems or Egress) continues to run the Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service for the Ministry of Justice.

Egress have managed the platform since taking over from Vodafone in 2019 and they handle operational delivery, support, and integrations for secure communications in the UK criminal justice system.

It is believed that the Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service relies on a combination of proprietary and standard software components including the open source Haraka SMTP Server. The MoJ tender reveals that the existing CJSM service is hosted on MS Azure and hosted mailboxes are on Dovecot.

CJSM used to publish a number of useful guides for the Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service. Webmail quick reference guide, Multi-factor authentication guide, CJSM Defend guide and CJSM Website Enhancements 2025 were removed in February 2026

The Ministry of Justice maintains an open microsite for CJSM at: https://github.com/ministryofjustice/cjsm

  • This repo includes various guides/documents under the /training or /downloads folders

You can contact the CJSM Helpdesk on 020 7604 5598. Lines are open every weekday 8am-7pm. Or email [email protected]

The Judiciary of England and Wales use Microsoft 365 for email. Can you Email a Judge ?

How to Get a CJSM Account ?

To obtain a Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) account, you must be part of an organization involved in the UK criminal justice system, as the service is not available to the general public. You can request access at the CJSM website at https://cjsm.net.

The CJSM application was rejected for the Ministry of Injustice so I setup my own CJSM email address [email protected]

If you have arrived at the Ministry of Injustice from https://cjsm.uk (MOI domain) you may well have been looking for https://cjsm.net which is the official website for The Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM).

Is CJSM Secure ?

The Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service is designed to be secure for its intended purpose, transmitting sensitive information up to the “OFFICIAL” and “OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE” classification levels within the UK criminal justice system.

However, its security has been debated due to historical issues and the evolving nature of cyber threats.

Security Strengths
  • End-to-End Encryption: CJSM uses dedicated servers to encrypt emails and attachments (up to 10MB) between registered users, ensuring data confidentiality during transmission. This aligns with UK government standards for handling sensitive justice-related data.
  • Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Access to the CJSM portal requires MFA, reducing the risk of unauthorized logins.
  • Restricted Access: Only approved organizations (e.g., police, courts, legal firms) can register, with strict vetting processes. This limits exposure to external threats.
  • Operational Oversight by Egress: Since Egress took over in 2019, they’ve addressed some legacy vulnerabilities (e.g., outdated protocols like RC4 and SSLv3 used under Vodafone). Egress’s expertise in secure email and compliance with ISO 27001 and Cyber Essentials Plus bolsters trust.
  • No Major Breaches Reported: Despite past concerns, no significant data breaches have been publicly documented, indicating functional security for its scope.
  • Policy Safeguards: CJSM prohibits storing emails on unapproved cloud services and restricts overseas access, minimizing data leakage risks.
Historical Security Issues (Pre-2019)

When Vodafone managed CJSM, security flaws were flagged in 2015, raising concerns that persist in discussions about the system’s legacy:

  • Outdated Encryption: Reliance on RC4 (a weak cipher) and SSLv2/SSLv3 protocols, vulnerable to attacks like POODLE.
  • Weak Certificates: Use of a self-signed 1024-bit RSA key, inadequate for modern standards.
  • Poor SSL/TLS Rating: An “F” grade from SSL Labs due to insecure cipher suites, prompting some organizations to block CJSM traffic.
  • Audit Gaps: Ineffective penetration testing failed to address these vulnerabilities promptly. While Egress has likely mitigated these (e.g., upgrading to stronger TLS protocols), specific technical details post-2019 are not publicly disclosed, as is typical for government systems.

Tender and the Transition to Cross Justice Secure Mail (CJSM Replacement)

While Egress operates the current CJSM, the UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is actively procuring a new system called Cross Justice Secure Mail to replace it. This upgrade aims to modernise secure email, file encryption and disaster recovery across justice partners.

The tender for Cross Justice Secure Mail (CJSM), the replacement for the existing Criminal Justice Secure Mail (CJSM) service, was issued by the UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

It aims to procure a modernized secure email, file encryption, and disaster recovery platform to support over 500,000 users across the criminal justice system in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

The procurement follows a selective restricted procedure under the Procurement Act 2023, with submissions via the MoJ’s Jaggaer eSourcing Portal.

Key Timeline
  • Procurement Launch: November 8th 2024
  • Tender Submission Deadline: December 13th 2024 (bids closed)
  • Contract Award: Expected in late 2025
  • Implementation Phase: Up to 12 months, starting October 27th 2025
  • Live Service Phase: 60 months (5 years), from October 2026 to October 2031
  • Extensions: Up to 24 months (two 12-month periods), for a maximum total of 8 years
Contract Value
  • Estimated Total: £26–30 million (depending on final scope)
  • Influencing Factors:
    • Tendered prices and implementation plans
    • Uptake of optional services
    • Extension options exercised
    • Participation by additional contracting authorities (e.g., police, courts, probation services)

As of the 1st October 2025, the evaluation phase is ongoing with no award of contract announced yet.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent