Policy paper

Crime and Policing Bill: ECHR second supplementary memorandum: 24 April 2025

Updated 28 April 2025

Introduction   

1. This memorandum supplements memorandums dated 23 February 2025 ^{[footnote 1]} and 22 April ^{[footnote 2]} prepared by the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, which addressed issues under the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) in relation to the Crime and Policing Bill (“the bill”).

2. This supplementary memorandum addresses the issues under the ECHR from further government amendments tabled on 24 April 2025 for Commons Committee stage. This memorandum has been prepared by the Home Office, Department for Transport and Ministry of Justice.

3. The amendments considered in this memorandum are:

a. Remote sale of knives: New clauses “Remote sales of knives etc,” and “Delivery of knives etc.” amend the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 to impose a two-stage age verification procedure on those involved in the sale and delivery of knives, to prevent sales of knives to persons under 18, and create further offences for failure to comply with those requirements.

b. Reporting bulk sales of knives: New clause “Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales” amends the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to insert an obligation on remote sellers of knives to report bulk sales to the police. These provisions are aimed at individuals or ‘grey market’ sellers who buy knives in large numbers and then sell them on to others via, for example, social media platforms without carrying out age verification checks which are required under existing law.

c. Remote sale or leasing for hire of crossbows: New clauses “Remote sale and letting of crossbows” and “Delivery of crossbows” amend the Crossbows Act 1987 to impose a two-stage age verification procedure on those involved in the sale, letting for hire and delivery of crossbows to prevent such sales, letting or delivery of crossbows to persons under 18, and create further offences for those who fail to comply with those requirements.

d. Sanctions for senior managers of online companies: New clauses “Relevant user-to-user services”, “relevant search services” and “service providers”” to “Interpretation of Chapter” and new Schedule “Penalties for service providers and content managers”, which together will form new Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the bill, introduce an obligation on certain online companies and their relevant managers to comply with a police notice requiring removal of unlawful weapons internet marketing. Failure to comply with a notice could ultimately result in a financial civil penalty being imposed on the company in question (up to a maximum of £60,000) and its relevant content manager (up to a maximum of £10,000).

e. Public Order – places of worship: restriction on protests: New clause “Places of worship: restriction on protest” amends the Public Order Act 1986 to provide the police with the power to impose conditions on assemblies, processions or a protest that may intimidate people and deter those people from accessing or carrying out religious activities at a place of worship.

f. Public Order – amendments to allow the British Transport Police to exercise further powers: New clause “Amendments relating to the British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police” amends the Public Order Act 1986 (“the 1986 Act”). These amendments will allow the British Transport Police Force (“the BTP”) to exercise the powers in sections 14 and 14A of the 1986 Act for assemblies being held within its jurisdiction. The clause also amends sections 60 and 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to enable the Ministry Defence Police (“the MDP”) to issue authorisations to enable MDP officers to exercise the powers contained in those sections; this aspect of the clause is not assessed to give rise to issues under the ECHR.

g. Presumption of anonymity for firearm officers: New clauses “Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences”, “Anonymity for authorised firearms officers appealing convictions for qualifying offences”, “Authorised firearms officers: reporting directions” and “Authorised firearms officers: anonymity orders” create a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers facing criminal trial who are accused of an offence involving the discharge of their firearm.

4. It is not considered that any other government amendments tabled on 24 April 2025 give rise to issues under the ECHR.

Remote sale of knives

5. New clauses “Remote sales of knives etc,” and “Delivery of knives etc.” amend the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 to impose a two-stage age verification procedure on those involved in the sale and delivery of knives, to prevent sales of knives to persons under 18 and by creating further offences for failure to comply with those requirements.

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence

6. These provisions may engage Article 8 because they require a person to supply photographic identification, namely a passport or UK driving licence, and a photograph of themselves for comparison before purchasing knives remotely. This engages a person’s right to privacy and their right to their images. Some purchasers may not wish to supply their personal information.

7.  The government is satisfied that these requirements are justified in accordance with Article 8(2) as necessary and proportionate to disrupt the long-term trend of an increase in serious violence and knife crime (the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights and freedom of others), and that any interference is therefore compatible with Article 8.

Reporting bulk sales of knives

8. New clause “Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: England and Wales imposes an obligation on remote sellers of knives to report bulk sales to the police. Specifically, persons must report any “reportable sales” as defined in new section 141D(3) to (5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 (as inserted by the clause). This seeks to address risks – including as outlined in the  independent end-to-end review of online knife sales conducted by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (31 January 2025) - concerning unscrupulous individuals buying large numbers of knives online and then re-selling them, potentially ending up in incidents of violence, without detection. ^{[footnote 3]}

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence

9. These provisions may engage a buyer’s Article 8 rights as they require a seller to provide the police with a buyer’s personal details for behaviour which may not be linked to criminality (for example, a private landlord equipping kitchens for more than one property or a person buying multiple sets of knives as presents). The government is satisfied that this requirement, which only applies to defined bulk sales, is a proportionate means of disrupting the long-term trend of an increase in serious violence with knives (the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others).

10.  It is possible that the subsequent use of the information by the police may also engage Article 8, for example where data is retained on the Police National Database, if individuals are visited by the police as part of investigations arising from the report or if information is disclosed on an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. ^{[footnote 4]} The government is satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure any such action is the least intrusive method of police investigation, contact, or disclosure for their proportionate aims. The police, as a public authority, must act compatibly with the ECHR (under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the HRA 1998”)) as well as relevant data protection legislation. The College of Policing Management of Police Information (“MOPI”) guidance provides a way for balancing proportionality and necessity ^{[footnote 5]} in respect of police retention and use of information. The statutory test for disclosure of information on an enhanced criminal record certificate, contained in section 113B(4) of the Police Act 1997, and accompanying statutory disclosure guidance, ^{[footnote 6]} provide safeguards against improper disclosure. In respect of police investigative actions, in line with their duty under the HRA 1998 the police will need to carefully consider the most proportionate means of achieving contact (where contact is deemed necessary), for example seeking to avoid contacting individuals at their place of work, or study, or in a manner likely to alert a third party.

11. The Home Office will work closely with the police to ensure safeguards are in place to ensure follow up policing actions, which should only be undertaken if corroborating evidence supports them, are no more than are necessary and proportionate to disrupt the long-term trend of an increase in serious violence with knives.

12.  Given the above, the government is satisfied that the clause is compatible with Article 8.

Remote sale or leasing for hire of crossbows

13.  New clauses “Remote sale and letting of crossbows” and “Delivery of crossbows” amend the Crossbows Act 1987 to impose a two-stage age verification procedure on those involved in the sale, letting for hire and delivery of crossbows to prevent such sales, letting or delivery of crossbows to persons under 18, and creates further offences for those who fail to comply with those requirements.

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence

14.  These clauses may engage Article 8 in the same way as the clause on the remote sale and delivery of knives discussed above (at paragraphs 9 to 11). The same analysis of that Article applies in respect of this clause.

Sanctions for senior managers of online companies

15. New clauses ““Relevant user-to-user services”, “relevant search services” and “service providers”” to “Interpretation of Chapter” and new Schedule “Penalties for service providers and content managers”, which together will form new Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the bill, create personal liability measures for senior managers of online platforms for failure to take action to remove illegal content relating to knives and offensive weapons. Upon identification of content illegally marketing prohibited weapons or knives, the police will have the power to issue Content Removal Notices to online companies and a designated UK based senior manager (the “appointed content manager”) of that organisation. If the company fails to remove the specified content, the online company and appointed senior manager will be respectively liable for penalty notices of up to a maximum of £60,000 and £10,000 respectively (subject to various safeguards). The measure extends UK wide.

Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

16. The civil limb of Article 6 is engaged, in light of the imposition of a monetary penalty.  There are safeguards built into the scheme, including a right to request the police to review the initial decision and the potential for an appeal to the County Court if a defendant wishes to challenge the civil penalty (including whether the level of the financial penalty imposed was proportionate to the misconduct). On appeal, the court may cancel, or reduce the amount of, the penalty. Additionally, a person can avoid a penalty by complying with the requirement to take down the material. The government is therefore satisfied that the measure is compatible with the fair trial requirements of Article 6.

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence

17.  Article 8 is engaged as a company will be obliged to provide to police the personal data of its senior manager. This data processing will be legitimate and proportionate, handled in accordance with relevant data protection legislation. It is clearly in pursuit of a legitimate aim, the prevention of unlawful marketing of knives and weapons and, thereby, the driving down of knife crime. The government is therefore satisfied that the measure is compatible with Article 8.

Article 1, Protocol 1 – Right to peaceful enjoyment of property

18.  Article 1, Protocol 1 will also be engaged by the financial penalties imposed on the online company and/or managers (up to a maximum of £60,000 and £10,000 respectively), which will deprive individuals of their possessions (money). The government assesses the interference, however, to be proportionate and necessary in the public interest; the deprivation will only arise if the individual or company unjustifiably fail to remove the unlawful weapons content (following a valid content removal notice). Appointed content managers are excused from paying the penalty where they can show they took “all reasonable steps” to comply with the content removal notice or decision notice.   The levels of the financial penalties will be adjusted on a case-by-case basis so as to be proportionate in light of the level of culpability, and the Home Office will produce guidance to assist decision makers in ensuring penalties are imposed at an appropriate level. The government is therefore satisfied that any interference is compatible with Article 1 Protocol 1.

Places of worship: restriction on protests

19.  New clause “Places of worship: restriction on protest” amends sections 12, 14 and 14ZA of the Public Order Act 1986 (“the 1986 Act”) to set an additional statutory threshold, which enables the police to make directions in relation to a public procession or assembly or give directions to a person organising or carrying on a one-person protest, which is in the vicinity of a place of worship. A senior police officer may impose conditions if he reasonably believes that such a procession, assembly or protest may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness with the result that those persons are deterred from accessing that place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities or carrying out religious activities at that the place of worship. This supplements the existing thresholds, such as if a public assembly or procession may result in serious public disorder, serious property damage or serious disruption to the life of the community.

Articles 10 and 11 – Right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association

20.  The amendment relates to the policing of assemblies, processions and one-person protests. Articles 10 and 11 are likely to be engaged when the police powers under sections 12, 14 and 14ZA of the 1986 Act are exercised.

21.  Whilst the amendment extends the scope of existing police powers under sections 12, 14 and 14ZA of the 1986 Act, by setting an additional threshold, it is not anticipated that it will result in any significantly increased interference with these rights, as the police can already give directions to assemblies, processions and one-person protests under the existing thresholds in the 1986 Act. Moreover, the amendment is designed to better protect the rights of individuals, who access places of worship, under Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion).

22. The government considers any interference with Articles 10 and 11 to be in accordance with the law and justified as a proportionate and necessary interference in pursuit of a legitimate aim. The legitimate aims pursued are the prevention of disorder and public safety, as well as the protection of the rights of others. The amendments are considered necessary to give clarity to police when dealing with assemblies, processions and one-person protests that take place in the vicinity of places of worship, ensuring more consistency of use, and as such to give clarity and foreseeability to the public in relation to the police use of their powers in these circumstances.

23. The police have extensive guidance ^{[footnote 7]} around the use of their powers in relation to public order, which ensures that decision making under sections 12, 14 and 14ZA of the 1986 Act will be exercised in a focused, non-arbitrary and ECHR-compatible way.  Alongside this guidance, which will be updated to address the new statutory threshold, the police’s duties under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides assurance that the powers will be used only in a manner proportionate to the circumstances.

24.  As such, the government is satisfied the clause is compatible with Articles 10 and 11.

Public Order: British Transport Police powers

25. Subsection (2) of new clause “Amendments relating to British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police” amends the definition of “land” in section 14A(9) of the 1986 Act and subsection (3) amends section 16 of the 1986 Act. These amendments will allow the British Transport Police Force (“the BTP”) to exercise the powers in sections 14 and 14A of the 1986 Act for assemblies being held within its jurisdiction.

Articles 10 and 11 – Right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association

26. These provisions may be used in the context of protests where people are exercising their Article 10 right to freedom of expression and their Article 11 right to freedom of assembly. These are qualified rights.  A restriction on those rights can be justified if it is prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society to further one of the legitimate aims identified in the Convention. These include, relevantly, the prevention of disorder or crime, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others: the latter will include the Article 1 Protocol 1 property rights of the station owners as well as the freedom of passengers to access their trains without undue inconvenience.

27.  The government is also satisfied that if the statutory requirements for placing conditions on an assembly under section 14 and for the making of a section 14A order were satisfied, it is likely to be sufficient to establish that the order is compatible with Articles 10 and 11.  Case law establishes that, provided the section 14 criteria are satisfied, any prosecution for breach of the conditions under section 14 will be a proportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11. ^{[footnote 8]}

28.  As such, the government is satisfied the clause is compatible with Articles 10 and 11.

Presumption of anonymity for firearm officers

29.  New clauses “Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences”, “Anonymity for authorised firearms officers appealing convictions for qualifying offences”, “Authorised firearms officers: reporting directions” and “Authorised firearms officers: anonymity orders” create a presumption in favour of the court in criminal proceedings withholding from the public the defendant’s name, address, and date of birth, as well as a presumption in favour of reporting restrictions prohibiting the publication of anything likely to identify the defendant. These presumptions will only apply to defendants who are firearms officers and who are accused of having committed an offence in which they discharged their firearm in the course of their duty as a firearms officer (‘a qualifying offence’). The clauses also create a statutory power to allow the court to order further measures to withhold the identity of the defendant from the public present in the courtroom where such measures are necessary in the interests of justice.

30.  Once a defendant is sentenced for a qualifying offence, the presumptions will cease to apply. However, before sentencing, the defendant may apply for in-court anonymity measures and reporting restrictions to apply in anticipation of bringing an in-time appeal against conviction. Such an order may be granted if the court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice.  If an appeal is lodged before the end of the appeal period, the Court of Appeal may reaffirm or reissue the order if it satisfied that its continuation is necessary in the interests of justice.

31.  The ECHR rights engaged by this provision are Article 10, and Article 14 taken together with Articles 2, 3, and 8. These rights are primarily engaged by the presumptions created by the clauses.

Article 10 – Freedom of expression 

32.  Article 10 is engaged since anonymity measures will restrict the freedom of expression of those who wish to report on the identity of a qualifying defendant in criminal proceedings by preventing them from learning that information and preventing them from disseminating it. However, Article 10 is a qualified right which may be restricted where to do so is necessary in a democratic society. One reason why it may be necessary to restrict Article 10 rights is where publication of a defendant’s identity would give rise to a real and immediate risk to the defendant’s life. The presumption reflects the fact that the disclosure of the identity of a firearms officer in criminal proceedings is particularly likely to give rise to such a risk to the officer, given the nature of their work.  The court can depart from the presumptions where to order reporting restrictions or in-court anonymity measures would be contrary to the interests of justice.

33.  An important safeguard is provided by the involvement of the media in applications for anonymity measures, including pursuant to these clauses. When considering whether to make an anonymity measure the court should invite media representations. Appropriate procedures should also be in place for notifying the media once an order has been made. The media, and any other directly affected party, has the right to apply to revoke or vary an anonymity measure. Additionally, the media, and any other aggrieved person, has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against reporting restrictions made in a trial on indictment in the Crown Court. The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal on such an appeal is not limited to reviewing the decision of the Crown Court; the court should form its own view on the material before it and may reverse, confirm or vary any order made.

34.  Given the court’s discretion to depart from the presumption, and the safeguards provided by the role of the media, the government is satisfied that these  clauses are compatible with Article 10.

Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination 

35.  Article 14, together with Articles 2, 3, and 8 may be engaged by this measure on the basis that it could be argued that a defendant’s Article 2, 3, and 8 rights are better protected where a defendant is a firearms officer charged with a qualifying offence as compared to any other defendant. In order for Article 14 to be engaged, a defendant’s status as a firearms officer charge with a qualifying offence would have to amount to ‘other status’ for the purposes of Article 14.

36.  If Article 14 is engaged by this measure, the government is satisfied that it is compatible with Article 14 because there is an objective justification for different treatment which bears a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the legitimate aim being pursued. Firearms officers standing trial in respect of a qualifying offence are particularly likely to face a risk to their life if their identity is disclosed, so that it is appropriate for the starting point to be that reporting restrictions or in-court anonymity measures will be ordered. However, the court need not order reporting restrictions or in-court anonymity measures where to do so would be contrary to the interests of justice. Given the court’s discretion to depart from the presumptions, the government does not anticipate that the difference in treatment between a firearms officer and any other defendant will be disproportionately stark in light of the justification for different treatment.

Home Office, Department for Transport and Ministry of Justice  

1. ECHRMemo.pdf ↩

2. Crime and Policing Bill: ECHR supplementary memorandum 22 April 2025 - GOV.UK ↩

3. The NPCC independent end-to-end review of online knife sales noted the lack of requirement for law enforcement to be informed as to where knives are being sold, particularly where sold in volume, “created opportunities for great market sellers to buy knives in bulk and resell them, potentially ending up in incidents of violence, without detection” (page 12). ↩

4. An enhanced criminal records check may be requested by employers in relation to a list of certain positions, such as teachers, social workers and carers. ↩

5. See: Management of police information: College of Policing ↩

6. See: Statutory Disclosure Guidance ↩

7. National protest operational advice ↩

8. James v DPP [2016] 1 WLR 2118 ↩