Planned changes to police guidance on naming suspects have been rejected in what has been hailed as “a huge victory for press freedom”.

The College of Policing has confirmed it will maintain the status quo that those charged with an offence “have no reasonable expectation of privacy” and should be named.

Proposed changes to the College’s Media Relations guidance would have changed the presumption that suspects charged with offences “should be named” to state they “can be named.”

Charging information would only be released “where the crime is of a serious nature such as rape or murder” or where the incident has already been reported in the media or on social media sites.

However the plan was met with a backlash from organisations including the Society of Editors and the News Media Association, while Nottingham Post editor Natalie Fahy warned her readers they would “suffer” if the proposals were given the green light.

The College confirmed it had backed down on the plans following a meeting with the Information Commissioner’s Office on Friday.

CoP chief Executive Andy Marsh, pictured, said that “an open, transparent, and professional working relationship” between the police service and the media remained essential to public trust.

He added: “Our guidance to police forces is clear that at the point an individual is charged with a crime, there should be no reasonable expectation of privacy. We believe this is strongly in the public interest and compatible with data protection law.”

Responding to the announcement, Dawn Alford, executive director of the Society of Editors, said: “The decision by the College of Policing to reject a proposal to grant forces the option or whether or not to name an individual upon charge is a huge victory for press freedom.

“Open justice remains one of the fundamental cornerstones of our democracy and media reporting not only keeps communities safe, but it also helps ensure that offenders are brought to justice.

“We are glad that common sense has prevailed, and we look forward to continuing to work with the College to ensure that any changes to the guidance strengthen rather than impede the public’s right to know.”