Category: Police

Police articles and analysis.

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.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

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.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

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.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

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.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

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 Legal Analysis Police

Is the Dark Web (Tor) Secure ?

Dark Web Tor Secure

Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) unveiled on the 19th September 2025 a dark web portal designed to lure potential informants from hostile regimes.

MI6 reveals ‘Silent Courier’ dark web portal upgrade it hopes will help it recruit new spies

Dubbed “Silent Courier” the platform aims to provide a secure channel for individuals worldwide to share sensitive information without fear of detection.

MI6 (SIS) Silent Courier
MI6 Silent Courier on the Dark WebDownload

As cyber threats proliferate, the initiative underscores the agency’s pivot towards anonymous online communications while preserving its storied tradition of clandestine face-to-face operations.

This upgrade reflects MI6’s ongoing efforts to recruit spies, particularly in Russia and other high-risk areas amid rising global tensions.

The portal’s launch coincides with instructional videos released on MI6’s newly established YouTube channel, available in eight languages.

MI6 – Securely Contacting MI6 – Introducing SILENT COURIER

These resources guide users on accessing the site safely, highlighting the blend of cutting-edge technology and practical tradecraft.

Yet, at the heart of this development lies a critical question. In an era of sophisticated surveillance, is Tor the anonymity network powering the dark web truly secure ?

How to Access MI6 Silent Courier

The new “Silent Courier” is accessible exclusively via a .onion address https://mi6govukbfxe5pzxqw3otzd2t4nhi7v6x4dljwba3jmsczozcolx2vqd.onion portal is hosted on the Tor network, enabling users to connect without revealing their IP addresses or locations.

Step-by-Step Guide to Access Tor (The Onion Router)
  1. Download Tor Browser:
    • Visit the official Tor Project
    • Select the Tor Browser download for your operating system (Windows, macOS, Linux, or Android; iOS users can use third-party apps like Onion Browser).
    • Choose the latest version (e.g., Tor Browser 14.5.7 as of 19th September 2025) and your preferred language. Avoid unofficial sources to prevent malware.
  2. Install Tor Browser:
    • Run the downloaded installer and follow the prompts. It’s portable, so no deep system changes are required.
    • For security, install on a clean, updated device free of malware. MI6 recommends a freshly installed browser to avoid tracking.
  3. Launch Tor Browser:
    • Open the Tor Browser application. It looks like a modified Firefox browser, as it’s built on Firefox’s framework.
    • On first launch, click “Connect” to join the Tor network. This routes your traffic through three relays (entry, middle, exit) with layered encryption.
  4. Accessing a .onion Site (e.g., Silent Courier):

Is Tor Secure?

Tor, short for The Onion Router, is a free open-source network that routes internet traffic through multiple volunteer-operated relays, layering encryption like an onion’s peels to obscure origins.

Launched in 2002 by the US Naval Research Laboratory, Tor has become the backbone of the dark web, shielding journalists, activists, and dissidents from oppressive regimes.

But is Tor secure? The short answer is a qualified yes—for most users, it offers robust protection against casual surveillance and basic tracking. Its multi-hop architecture makes it exceedingly difficult for eavesdroppers to correlate entry and exit points, thwarting mass data collection by ISPs or governments. Independent audits, such as those by the Tor Project, consistently affirm its cryptographic strength, employing protocols like Diffie-Hellman key exchange and AES-256 encryption.

Yet, Tor is not impenetrable. Vulnerabilities arise from user error: misconfigurations, JavaScript-enabled browsers, or reusing identifiable details can de-anonymise individuals.

State actors, including the NSA, MI6 and FSB, have exploited “traffic confirmation attacks” by controlling both entry and exit nodes, as revealed in Edward Snowden’s leaks.

Moreover, Tor’s public bridges and directory authorities can be targeted and malware on a user’s device bypasses the network entirely.

Nonetheless, experts caution that no tool is fool proof as Tor excels at evasion but demands vigilance. As cybersecurity experts say, “Tor hides your path, but not your destination if you’re careless.”

Any communication using the internet involves risk: the best method to contact us depends on your personal situation and environment. Data submitted on this website is secured to the highest standard but internet browsing activity, including visits to this website, can be monitored by most hostile governments.

You can decrease this risk by:

  • Using the Tor browser or a virtual private network (VPN) to increase your privacy.
  • If using a VPN (especially in a hostile country), considering carefully the VPN provider that you choose. Do not enter any data linked to your own identity when setting up the VPN.
  • Using a device which is not registered to you.
  • Ensuring your internet browser is updated.
  • Creating a free new email address or social media account for us to reply to. Do not use a name, phone number or other data linked to your real identity when creating this account.
  • Contacting us from outside your country if you are able to travel.
MI6 (SIS) – “Silent Courier”

Is the Dark Web (Tor) Secure ? No but its better than nothing !

We support the important work of the United Kingdom Intelligence Community (UKIC) including MI5 and MI6.

Check out our articles on National Security Online Information Team, Policing by Consent, Are the Police for Hire ?, Police Impartiality, Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Police Professional Standards Department, IOPC, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Police Digital Service, Wasting Police Time, 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.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

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

Police Misconduct Hearings

Police Misconduct Hearings

Across the United Kingdom, police forces strive to maintain public trust by upholding high standards of professionalism and integrity. A key mechanism for achieving this is the misconduct hearing process designed to address allegations of misconduct or gross misconduct by police officers and staff.

These hearings, detailed on police websites such as the Sussex Police misconduct hearings page, provide a transparent framework for accountability.

This article explores the purpose, structure, and public accessibility of police misconduct hearings across UK forces by highlighting their role in fostering trust and how the public can engage with the process.

Purpose and Structure of Misconduct Hearings

Misconduct hearings are convened when there is evidence that a police officer or staff member has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour, a code governing police conduct detailed in The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008.

These standards encompass principles such as honesty, integrity, respect, and the responsible use of authority. Misconduct hearings address less severe breaches, while gross misconduct hearings tackle actions serious enough to potentially warrant dismissal.

The process ensures allegations are thoroughly investigated, with the officer or staff member given an opportunity to explain their actions. Hearings are typically chaired by a senior police officer, such as a Chief Constable or Assistant Chief Constable (a requirement in many forces since May 2024 – The Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2024), and include independent panel members, often with a legally qualified person to ensure impartiality.

The panel reviews evidence, hears from witnesses, and determines whether misconduct has occurred, with outcomes ranging from written warnings to dismissal without notice.

Transparency and Public Access

Transparency is a cornerstone of public confidence in UK policing.

Since the 1st May 2015, gross misconduct hearings for police officers are required to be held in public, unless there’s a compelling reason to exclude the public, a significant change brought about by the Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 to improve transparency and public confidence in the police disciplinary system.

This openness allows the public to scrutinise how police forces handle allegations, reinforcing accountability. However, the Chair of a hearing may hold parts or all of a hearing in private if sensitive issues, such as national security, operational tactics, or personal confidentiality, are involved.

In such cases, the public may be temporarily excluded to ensure fairness and protect sensitive information, but these decisions are made carefully to balance transparency with operational needs. The commitment to public access demonstrates that police forces take breaches of conduct seriously and are willing to be held accountable.

How the Public Can Attend

Public attendance at misconduct hearings is actively encouraged across UK police forces, reflecting their commitment to openness. Members of the public aged 18 or over can attend as observers, though they cannot participate in the proceedings. The process for attending varies slightly between forces but generally involves registering in advance, often through an online form or by contacting the force’s Professional Standards Department.

For example, Sussex Police provides a dedicated section on their website listing upcoming hearings, including the officer’s name, hearing dates, and registration details.

Date(s): 15 – 19 September 2025

Time: 10:00

Location: Sussex Police Headquarters, Church Lane, Lewes, BN7 2DZ

It is alleged that PS Day, who was based at Brighton, sexually harassed a subordinate member of staff. If proved this matter would amount to gross misconduct.

The allegation amounts to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to (a) Authority, respect and courtesy; and (b) Discreditable conduct.

Public notification of misconduct hearing – Former PS Day – Sussex Police

Places are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, with priority often given to complainants, other interested parties, and representatives of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

The media are also allocated seats to ensure public reporting, further enhancing transparency.

Practical Considerations for Attendees

To attend a hearing, prospective attendees should check their local police force’s website for details of upcoming hearings and registration processes. Forces typically publish hearing details at least five days in advance, though short-notice cancellations can occur due to legal or operational reasons. Attendees are advised to confirm arrangements with the force, as notifications of cancellations may not always be possible.

Most forces, like Sussex Police, note that they cannot cover travel or other expenses for attendees. Accessibility is prioritised, with venues chosen to accommodate attendees where possible, though public parking and refreshments are not always available. Attendees must adhere to conditions set by the Chair, such as prohibitions on recording or broadcasting to maintain the integrity of the process. Texting or using social media may be permitted unless specific restrictions are imposed.

Check out our articles on Police Professional Standards, Policing by Consent, 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.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

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 Analysis Police

Police Surveillance

Police Surveillance

The case of R v Sutherland & Others [2002] EW Misc 1 (EWCC) stands as a seminal case that highlights the critical importance of transparency in criminal investigations and the protection of defendants’ rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

This high-profile murder trial collapsed due to improper police conduct, leaving a lasting impact on the application of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

The case serves as a stark reminder of the boundaries of lawful surveillance and the necessity of proper disclosure in criminal proceedings.

Background of the Case

The case involved Robert Sutherland and four co-defendants, charged with murder and conspiracy to murder following a fatal incident in the Midlands.

The prosecution’s case hinged on evidence obtained through covert surveillance, including audio recordings made at Grantham and Sleaford police stations.

However, it was revealed that the police had secretly recorded privileged conversations between the defendants and their legal advisors, violating the defendants’ right to confidential legal consultation.

This misconduct led to an application to stay the proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process, arguing that the surveillance had fatally undermined the trial’s fairness.

The High Court judge agreed, ruling that the police had “made a mockery of the police caution” and “undermined the statutory right of a defendant to confer with a solicitor in private.” As a result, the case was dismissed, and all defendants were acquitted.

Impact on Disclosure Obligations

R v Sutherland & Others [2002] significantly clarified disclosure obligations under the CPIA 1996. The Act requires the prosecution to disclose all material that might undermine their case or assist the defence.

The case established that even non-incriminating surveillance evidence, such as recordings yielding no useful evidence, must be disclosed. The court emphasised that the existence of surveillance itself is material, as it may support defence arguments questioning the investigation’s thoroughness or integrity.

For example, extensive surveillance producing no incriminating results could strengthen a claim of innocence. This ruling has shaped how prosecution teams manage evidence, stressing meticulous record-keeping and transparency to ensure fairness.

Implications for Surveillance Practices

The case also exposed serious issues with police surveillance under RIPA 2000, which governs covert investigative techniques.

The unauthorised recording of privileged communications breached RIPA’s requirements for lawful, proportionate, and authorised surveillance.

The court’s strong condemnation highlighted the risks of overreach in surveillance operations and their potential to derail prosecutions.

This aspect of the case has led to increased scrutiny of police practices and reinforced the importance of independent oversight, such as by Surveillance Commissioners, to ensure compliance with RIPA.

Directed Surveillance Authority under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) provides the legal framework for authorising directed surveillance in the UK, which involves covert monitoring of individuals’ activities in non-intrusive settings, such as public places, to gather intelligence for investigations.

Directed Surveillance Authority (DSA) under RIPA requires that such operations be necessary, proportionate, and approved by a designated senior officer within a public authority, such as the police or intelligence services.

The DSA ensures compliance with strict criteria to prevent abuse, safeguarding individuals’ privacy while enabling lawful investigations. Oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) ensures adherence to RIPA’s guidelines, with failures to comply, as seen in cases like R v Sutherland & Others [2002], potentially leading to evidence being deemed inadmissible and undermining prosecutions.

As per the requirements of R v SUTHERLAND, if the task has a RIPA / DSA authorisation, NPAS will require a full copy of the DSA authorisation detailing exactly what is (and isn’t) authorised and the means by which it can be obtained, details of the authorising officer, date authorised and the review / expiry dates before that tasking can be actioned.

National Police Air Service – NPAS – OPERATIONS CENTRE FORM – REQUEST FOR PRE-PLANNED AIR SUPPORT

Broader Consequences and Legacy

The collapse of the trial raised concerns about public confidence in the criminal justice system. The acquittal, while legally justified, left the victim’s family feeling “completely let down,” underscoring the human cost of investigative failures.

The case has been widely cited in discussions about the ethical limits of covert operations and the need for robust training for law enforcement.

The Signature Brand have integrated the case into training on disclosure and covert tactics, highlighting its practical implications. For defence lawyers, it provides a powerful tool to challenge prosecution cases by scrutinising disclosure completeness, particularly in surveillance-heavy cases.

Conclusion

R v Sutherland & Others [2002] remains a cornerstone of UK case law, reinforcing the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability in criminal proceedings.

Its legacy continues to influence how surveillance evidence and disclosure are handled, ensuring defendants’ rights are protected while upholding judicial integrity. The case serves as a cautionary tale that procedural missteps, even if well-intentioned, can have profound consequences, highlighting the delicate balance between effective policing and adherence to the rule of law.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Are the Police for Hire ?, Police Impartiality, Police Professional Standards, 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, Free Speech Union, 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.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

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

Are the Police for Hire ?

Police for Hire

A chief officer of police may, at the request of any individual or entity, provide special police services at specific premises or within any locality in the force’s jurisdiction, subject to charges set by the police authority on a scale determined by that authority. So yes the Police are available for hire !

Police forces have historically recovered costs for “special police services”. These services include policing events like football matches, concerts, or private functions where organisers request additional police presence beyond standard public duties.

Drawing on key documents from UK Parliament, National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), this article explores the legal framework, implications, and controversies surrounding charging for police services.

Legislative Framework: The Foundation of Charging

The legal basis for charging for police services is rooted in Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 which allows police authorities to provide “special police services” at the request of any person, subject to payment. These services encompass additional policing beyond core public duties, such as securing commercial events like football matches, concerts, or private functions.

Section 26 of the Police Act 1996 applies similar requirements to the provision of police services overseas.

The 2008-09 UK Parliament report by the Home Affairs Committee details how this provision enables forces to recover costs for deploying officers, vehicles, and equipment.

Section 25, however, is not prescriptive about which events should incur charges or how fees should be calculated, leading to significant variation across forces. The Parliament report highlights cases where event organisers faced unexpected costs due to inconsistent application.

To address this, Section 15 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 later clarified the role of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in overseeing charging policies, ensuring greater accountability.

NPCC Guidelines: Standardising the Approach

The NPCC’s National Policing Guidelines on Charging for Police Services aim to standardise practices across England and Wales. The guidelines categorise chargeable services into three types: special police services (e.g., policing commercial events like music festivals), mutual aid (where one force assists another), and additional services (e.g., training or consultancy for external organisations).

Charges are based on the full economic cost, including officer salaries, overtime, vehicles, and administrative overheads.

For example, policing a large-scale event like Glastonbury Festival could cost organisers tens of thousands of pounds, calculated by officer hours and resources deployed.

The guidelines emphasise transparency, requiring forces to publish charging rates and consult with event organisers in advance. They also allow exemptions for non-commercial events, such as charitable fundraisers, if they serve the public interest.

However, the discretion granted to individual forces can lead to inconsistencies. A small community group organising a charity run might face charges for road closures in one force area but not another, raising concerns about fairness.

Special Police Services Costs

As an example, in the Fees and Charges for the Supply of Goods & Services 2025 document published by Sussex Police, on page 14 they publish the costs for special police services.

  SurreySussex
Uniform and CID 2025 Rates Hourly RatesDaily RatesHourly RatesDaily Rates
  ££££
  Chief SuperintendentNORMAL165.911,202.85164.911,195.58
BANK HOLIDAYN/AN/AN/AN/A
BH < 8 days’ noticeN/AN/AN/AN/A
  SuperintendentNORMAL144.541,047.93143.541,040.66
BANK HOLIDAYN/AN/AN/AN/A
BH < 8 days’ noticeN/AN/AN/AN/A
  Chief InspectorNORMAL117.12849.08116.11841.81
BANK HOLIDAYN/AN/AN/AN/A
BH < 8 days’ noticeN/AN/AN/AN/A
  InspectorNORMAL110.47800.94109.47793.67
BANK HOLIDAYN/AN/AN/AN/A
BH < 8 days’ noticeN/AN/AN/AN/A
  SergeantNORMAL114.34828.99113.34821.72
BANK HOLIDAY139.541,011.65138.541,004.38
BH < 8 days’ notice181.841,318.36180.841,311.09
  ConstableNORMAL91.10660.4590.09653.18
BANK HOLIDAY111.33807.15110.33799.88
BH < 8 days’ notice143.721,041.93142.711,034.66
Charging of special policing services provided at commercial events

Please refer to the Fees and Charges for the Supply of Goods & Services 2025 for all fees and charges for special police services.

Sussex Police also publish an Income Generation and Charging Policy.

This policy is required to ensure there is a consistent and transparent method for calculating the appropriate fees for the use of police services and/or goods that are provided by Sussex Police to outside agencies so that the ‘users’ of the service have a clear understanding of how the charges have been calculated.

Income Generation and Charging Policy (490/2024) – Sussex Police

The amount of money Brighton and Hove Albion paid to Sussex Police for special police services from 2015 to 2024 was obtained via a Freedom of Information request by Richard Lemmer.

Further to a FOI request about the provision of Metropolitan Police officers under private hire arrangements such as those specified under S.25 of the Police Act 1996, The Met Police Published the response Private hire or provision of officers under special services provisions of Police Act 1996

Football clubs are currently only legally obliged to pay for the policing on their “footprint”, usually inside the stadium and surrounding car parks; the provision of “consequential policing” outside a football match, for example at a railway station or in the city centre, is currently the responsibility of the police and is provided at their discretion and at a cost to them.

The Cost of Policing Football Matches – Home Affairs Committee

HMRC and VAT

HMRC’s VATGPB5270 guidance clarifies the tax implications of charging for police services. Core policing duties, such as responding to emergencies or maintaining public order, are classified as non-business activities and exempt from VAT, reflecting their status as statutory obligations.

In contrast, special police services provided to commercial entities, such as policing a corporate event, are considered business activities and subject to VAT.

This ensures forces recover costs without generating profit. For example, a private company hiring police for a product launch would pay the full cost plus VAT, while a community event might qualify for an exemption if deemed non-commercial.

This distinction aligns with HMRC’s broader aim to balance fiscal responsibility with the principle that core policing remains a public good.

However, the complexity of determining which services are VAT-liable could create administrative burdens for forces, particularly when dealing with mixed-purpose events.

Implications and Controversies

The “police for hire” model, grounded in the Police Act 1996 and refined by the NPCC guidelines, reflects a pragmatic response to financial pressures. Yet, it raises profound questions about the nature of policing in a resource-constrained era.

Charging for police services has practical benefits but also significant drawbacks. Charging allows forces to prioritise public safety while recouping costs from those who directly benefit, such as commercial event organisers.

However, critics argue that this practice risks creating a two-tier policing system, where wealthier organisations or individuals can afford enhanced protection, while smaller groups struggle.

This raises ethical concerns about whether access to police services is being commodified, undermining the principle of policing by consent established by Sir Robert Peel. Moreover, inconsistent application of charges across forces can erode public trust.

The NPCC guidelines aim to mitigate this, but their reliance on local discretion leaves room for variation.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Police Professional Standards Department, IOPC, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Police Digital Service, Knowledge Hub – Police Digital Service, What is the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC) ?, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Sussex 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.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

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

What is the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC) ?

National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC)

The National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC) is a UK national unit that supports police forces across the United Kingdom, Crown Dependencies, and British Overseas Territories by coordinating the deployment of police officers and staff during large-scale events, operations, and national crises, such as civil emergencies, major protests, or significant public events.

It ensures effective mobilisation of specialist resources and mutual aid across forces, maintains national capacity assessments for over 200 specialist skills, and provides strategic intelligence and briefing support, particularly for protest-related threats.

NPoCC also represents UK policing at government-level meetings, including the Civil Contingencies Committee (COBR), and supports operations like disaster victim identification and international policing efforts.

The unit is composed of officers and staff seconded from UK police forces, organised into two teams: Operations and Strategic Intelligence and Briefing (SIB). Assistant Chief Constable Mark Williams serves as the Strategic Lead and National Mobilisation Coordinator as of January 2025.

Location

NPoCC is based at 50 Broadway, London, SW1H 0BL. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) shares the same building as the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC).

The office was officially opened in April 2024 by The Duke of Gloucester. The Duke of Gloucester was welcomed by NPCC Chair Chief Constable Gavin Stephens, and Assistant Chief Constable Mark Williams of the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC). Also in attendance was the Rt Hon Chris Philp MP, who was the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire.

It relocated to this site following a lease agreement approved in 2023, after previously being housed at 10 Victoria Street, London, under a temporary extension of occupancy. The relocation was funded by NPoCC and the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), with no liability to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC).

Relevant Legislation

NPoCC operates under the following legal frameworks:

  • Section 22A of the Police Act 1996: This legislation underpins the NPoCC’s operations through a collaboration agreement signed by Chief Constables, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), and non-Home Office force equivalents. It facilitates the funding and coordination of NPoCC by contributions from all UK police forces and enables the NPCC, which NPoCC reports to, to function as a national coordination body.
  • Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (revoked on 24 February 2025 by the Procurement Act 2023): For contracts exceeding £213,477, NPoCC’s procurement activities, such as those related to its relocation and fit-out costs, must comply with these regulations. The 2023 relocation to 50 Broadway adhered to these rules, using existing Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) frameworks for construction and design services.
  • Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011: This act defines the roles of Police and Crime Commissioners, who, along with MOPAC and the Common Council of the City of London, are part of the policing bodies contributing to NPoCC’s governance and funding.

Budget and Funding

The National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC) does not have a publicly disclosed specific budget figure for 2025 in available records.

Its funding is derived from contributions by all UK police forces under a Section 22A Police Act 1996 collaboration agreement, managed through the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC). The exact amount allocated to NPoCC is not itemised separately in public documents, as it forms part of broader NPCC and police funding streams.

For context, the overall police funding settlement for England and Wales in 2025-26 is up to £19.6 billion, an increase of £1.1 billion from 2024-25, with £17.5 billion allocated to Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and including £1 billion for national policing priorities, which encompasses NPoCC’s operations.

However, the specific portion for NPoCC is not detailed, as its budget is embedded within these contributions and NPCC operational costs. Additional costs, such as the 2023 relocation to 50 Broadway, London, were covered by NPoCC and NPCC without liability to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), indicating shared funding mechanisms.

Without precise figures, the NPoCC’s budget is likely a small fraction of the national priorities funding, tailored to support its coordination, intelligence, and mobilisation activities across UK forces.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Are the Police for Hire ?, Police Surveillance, Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Police Professional Standards Department, Are the Police for Hire ?, IOPC, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Police Digital Service, Knowledge Hub – Police Digital Service, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Sussex 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.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

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

Sussex Police and Brighton Pride 2025

Sussex Police and Brighton Pride

Brighton Pride, officially Brighton & Hove Pride, is often cited as the UK’s largest and most popular Pride festival, drawing significant crowds and generating substantial economic impact.

Sources indicate it attracts over 300,000 attendees, with some estimates as high as 500,000 over the Pride weekend, contributing around £30.5 million to the city’s economy. The event features a major parade, a festival in Preston Park, and various parties, making it a cornerstone of Brighton’s cultural calendar.

Pride On The Park supported by Hayu is the official Brighton & Hove Pride fundraiser for our local LGBTQIA+ community groups. A glittering and truly inclusive community celebration that delivers an unforgettable day of Pride, it is unique community fundraising event that has enjoyed amazing performances from international stars including Britney Spears, Kylie Minogue, Dua Lipa, Ray,  Nile Rogers & Chic, Clean Bandit, Pet Shop Boys, Grace Jones, Years and Years, Sister Sledge, Carly Rae Jepsen, Fatboy Slim, Paloma Faith, The Human League,  Ella Elre, Jessie J amongst others.

The UK’s Biggest LGBTQ Pride Festival – Brighton Pride

Brighton Pride this year is being held between the 2nd and 3rd August 2025. Mariah Carey is the headline act for Brighton & Hove Pride 2025, performing at Pride On The Park on Saturday 2nd August. The Sugababes will headline on Sunday 3rd August.

Should the NHS take part in Pride (LGBTQIA+) Events ?

Police and Impartiality at Pride

Mr Justice Linden in Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin) ruled that Northumbria Police breached their duty of impartiality by allowing uniformed officers to actively participate in the Newcastle Pride in the City 2024 event, displaying symbols like the Progress Pride flag.

The court found that such participation gave the impression of endorsing a contested ideological position—specifically, gender ideology—potentially undermining public trust in the police’s ability to act impartially, particularly in disputes involving gender-critical individuals and transgender rights supporters.

Sussex Police and Brighton Pride 2025

Sussex Police Media Team were contacted on the 31st July 2025. The Sussex Police’s responses are in bold :-

  1. Has the Chief Constable/Sussex Police decided if they will allow uniformed  officers to actively take part in Brighton Pride on the 2nd – 3rd AUGUST 2025 ?

A decision was taken in June that Sussex Police would not take part in the parade in 2025.

  1. Will the Sussex Police Pride Car and other Sussex Police vehicles have the PRIDE and other symbols removed ? 

We have a police vehicle which has LGBTQ+ inclusion livery. This is a response vehicle used all year round within the Brighton division. We cannot say at this point whether it will be operational at the weekend.

  1. Has any guidance been issued to officers in relation to PRIDE Brighton 2025 and other events ? For example,  Sussex police officers can only attend Brighton Pride 2025 events on a voluntary basis and not in uniform unless policing the event.

Sussex Police is not taking part in the parade this year.

Check out our articles on Sussex Police, Policing by Consent, Police Impartiality, Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Police Professional Standards Department, IOPC, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Are the Police for Hire ?, Thought Police, Police Digital Service, Knowledge Hub – Police Digital Service, 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.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

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