Behind the veil of transparency

The decision by police to withhold almost all details of disciplinary proceedings against a constable will make many readers question whether rules brought in to increase transparency actually carry any weight.

Under the guidelines issued by the government in 2015, forces should hear all misconduct hearings in public, but are allowed to hear part or all of a hearing behind close doors in exceptional circumstances.

This system leaves a lot to be desired, especially bearing in mind the explanation given by Chief Constable Alan Pughsley for why this particular tribunal was heard in private.

The outcome of the hearing, a summary of the misconduct and the officer’s rank were released, but that was it.

Of course, protecting the identity of victims of crime or gross misconduct is completely acceptable, but in this case anonymising everyone involved seems only to protect the guilty party.

At the very least the force could release more details and not risk identifying anyone involved, even the PC.

The exact nature of the allegation for example could be published in full or phrased in such a way that parties involved are still protected.

The allegations were clearly extremely serious, given the officer’s immediate dismissal and the fact the chief constable chaired the hearing, although did not result in a criminal investigation.

While it may be the first hearing held by Kent police in private since the new laws came into force in mid-2015, it raises the question of what’s the point of transparency rules if they are so easy to get around?