Exclusive: Stephen Parkinson's CPS Blocks FOI on Southport Citing National Security Concerns
The breakdown with some added context on our Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Brief has obtained an FOI response from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) concerning its handling of the Southport prosecutions, including both the rioters and non-violent protestors.
The request, submitted in early June, sought internal documents on charging decisions, legal thresholds, and prosecutorial strategy, along with any related correspondence involving the Home Office, Ministry of Justice, or Attorney General’s Office.
After a delay of nearly 60 days—three times longer than the statutory 20-day limit—the CPS refused to release the material in full.
But it is how they blocked the information that some might find interesting.
The agency, which prosecutes nearly half a million cases across England and Wales in a calendar year, cited three exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000: Sections 24, 31, and 36.
Section 24 concerns the safeguarding of national security.
In its response, the CPS argued that any material shared by government departments relating to “the safety or wellbeing of the nation” must remain confidential as a matter of “legitimate expectation”.
The agency further claimed that disclosure could “prejudice the handling and immediate decision-making” of government bodies tasked with protecting national security.
Put another way, the CPS, under Stephen Parkinson’s direction, contends that releasing basic details about how it prosecuted citizens, including those charged over social media posts, could pose a threat to national security.
Section 31 pertains to prejudicing the administration of justice.
The CPS argued that such applies to communications between departments, which must be able to “maintain their thought process when making decisions on criminal cases, without fear of the routes leading to those decisions later being disclosed into the public domain.”
Put differently, they don’t want to disclose how “justice” was previously pursued because it might affect how they seek it in the future.
They also claimed that releasing certain material “may dissuade witnesses from assisting in future investigations.”
This is despite the original FOI request making clear that any personal information could be redacted, as is the norm for most requests concerning government employees or correspondence.
Section 36 relates to the conduct of public affairs.
In perhaps the most telling explanation, the CPS said releasing internal documents concerning the Southport unrest could inhibit their ability to “express themselves openly, honestly, and completely”.
The Information Access Team further clarified:
“It is vital that CPS staff can provide free and frank exchange of views to others regarding their views and advice without fear that those outcomes or conversations will be released later into the public domain.”
“If the content of these discussions were to be disclosed, it would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views and would damage the quality of advice and deliberation and lead to poorer decision-making in relation to casework and policy in this area.”
In other words, transparency could have a detrimental impact. If members of the public were to see what arguments were made in relation to the Southport prosecutions that could stop them from expressing themselves “honestly”.
In apparent contradiction of its own reasoning under Section 31, which essentially argued that disclosing past prosecution details could affect future cases, the CPS did release a small set of documents.
Attached to the response was a selection of case law “provided” to CPS lawyers in connection with offences linked to “violent disorder”.
One case related to prosecutions from the 2011 riots, involving several appellants convicted of violent disorder. Two were found to have reportedly incited violence on social media, five were convicted of burglary, and the remainder were charged with possession of stolen goods.
The Court of Appeal dismissed most of the 2011 cases, ruling that the wider unrest served as an aggravating factor and that harsh sentences were necessary to “punish and deter.”
Yet, as we know, this precedent is applied inconsistently.
During the Black Lives Matter riots in London, Jonathan Daley and Shayden Spencer—both convicted of assaulting police officers—received suspended sentences and community orders instead of prison time.
Another case disclosed by the CPS dated back to 1970, involving several protestors who appealed convictions for unlawful assembly and rioting in connection with demonstrations “regarding the Greek regime.”
This likely references the Greek military junta, known as the Regime of the Colonels, that seized power in a coup in 1967. Protests emerged after Britain’s diplomatic and economic engagement with the regime.
The Court upheld all of the “stern” sentences despite the appellants’ previously good character. The ruling also established that if a group of peaceful individuals begin to act with a “shared common purpose,” and ordinary citizens “fear” a breach of the peace, the assembly becomes unlawful.
It marked a broad and subjective interpretation—one that likely influenced the restrictive and far-reaching framework of the Public Order Act 1986.
The final case cited involved a 21-year-old student of “good character” who took part in violent disorder after the government announced its plan to raise university tuition fees in 2011.
He appealed a 16-month prison sentence and disputed claims that he had thrown a bin at a car carrying members of the Royal Family. Although no witness identified him as the person responsible, the court ruled it was reasonable for the judge to do so based on still images and television footage.
Stephen Parkinson has served as Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales since November 2023, appointed by then-Attorney General Victoria Prentis under Rishi Sunak’s government.
Shortly after his appointment, he drew criticism when it emerged he had expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020.
In that same endorsement, written during his tenure at the law firm Kingsley Napley, Parkinson also recommended the work of American author and activist Ibram X. Kendi, one of the leading figures of modern “anti-racist” ideology.
Kendi’s writings advance several contentious ideas: complexity is irrelevant if outcomes differ by race; “positive” discrimination is justified if it promotes “equity”; and capitalism and racism are inseparable, meaning the fight against one demands opposition to the other.
In other words, the country’s most senior prosecutor publicly endorsed a figure who promotes race-based discrimination and explicitly links anti-racism to anti-capitalist ideology.
Perhaps that might give some enough of an indicator as to why his department is stonewalling requests about an event that saw dozens upon dozens of white working class Brits imprisoned for words, not material violence.
To really put it into perspective, some of those white-working class Brits received longer sentences than rapists and paedophiles, as our current laws and Sentencing Council guidance permits.
Parkinson’s agency provoked yet more outrage during the Southport prosecutions when it was discovered that his staff issued false public statements about Lucy Connolly telling officers she “did not like immigrants” and that “children were not safe from them.”
In reality, the full police transcript read:
“I’m well aware that we need immigrants… I’m well aware that if I go to the hospital there are immigrants working there and the hospital wouldn’t function without them. I’m [also] well aware of the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants and they are not checked and (nor is) what they might have done (any crimes) in their country of origin – it’s a national security issue and they’re a danger to children.”
After Lucy’s mother challenged the CPS directly, they corrected the statement on their website.
The Brief is now refining its request to focus specifically on prosecutions brought under the Public Order Act against individuals charged for social media activity.
This is mainly because during such prosecutions, the CPS appeared to shift its legal approach.
Rather than charging offenders under conventional speech laws such as the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, many prosecutors relied on the Public Order Act.
The distinction is significant. Section 19 of the Public Order Act carries a maximum prison term of seven years—far higher than the one to two years available under the usual communications offences.
There was also inconsistency in how similar actions were charged. Some protestors were prosecuted under incitement laws for comments nearly identical to those that others faced under the Online Safety Act 2023..
You can see the inconsistencies yourself in an archive I published of the non-violent Southport protstors in August:
In any case, I’ll keep you updated on the new request. Hopefully, it’ll squeeze some more information out of them.
Do you believe our best days lie ahead?
Will you keep watching as our politicians and broadcasters push for yet more surveillance, censorship, and control?
If you want to push back—if not today, maybe someday—supporting independent journalism can (genuinely) make a real impact.
In the past year, The Stark Naked Brief has reached 130+ million people. Sometimes, all it takes is one post—one uncomfortable truth—to wake someone up, enrol them on a journey of actual enlightenment, and put another dent the uniparty’s monopoly.
Well done JJ
It would be easy to write off the inconsistencies as normal administrative errors, but it's all part of a campaign to create confusion...