Why transparency in South Yorkshire Police's misconduct hearings matters to us - and should to you too

Officers put their lives, and their safety, on the line every single day. They keep communities safe, are instrumental in bringing justice about, and routinely offer a lifeline to bereft and bereaved families.

When it’s done right, policing can be life-changing. It’s only right that superlative examples of policing are highlighted, praised and given the coverage they deserve.

As The Star’s crime and court reporter - a role I’ve proudly held for a few years - I can tell you that whenever we’re made aware of such examples within South Yorkshire Police, we try to showcase them.

But while it’s my job to shed light on the best of policing in the region when appropriate, it’s also my job to do the same for the worst of it. The public has a right to know when police officers act in a way that brings their police force, and profession, into disrepute.

Misconduct hearings are often the way we know about these examples.

The public interest, and what I believe our readers deserve to know is always at the forefront of my mind when it comes to reporting good and bad policing - and everything in between.

After all, policing by consent - the principle developed by Sir Robert Peel to define an ethical police force more than two centuries ago - is dependent on the public approval of their existence.

And that is why I find South Yorkshire Police’s recent decision to no longer provide an explanation when misconduct panels choose to withhold the identity of police officers to be so disappointing.

This comes after the last three officers to face misconduct proceedings in hearings scheduled recently have all had their identities protected.

Whenever the force gives notice of an anonymous police officer going before a misconduct hearing, I ask why that decision has been made. I believe it is in the public interest to do so and I wouldn’t be doing my job properly if I didn’t.

I have now been told that they will no longer provide an explanation when they choose to anonymise officers’ identities because “in doing so there is a risk of undermining the basis of the anonymity order.”

This puts the public and the press in a situation where officers whose alleged conduct has been deemed serious enough for them to face proceedings that could result in them losing their job are not only allowed to face less scrutiny than officers who are named, but they can no longer expect for that decision to be explained.

How will you, the public, know if that officer should be anonymous or not if the explanation as to why that decision has been made isn’t public?

The force’s stated purpose for holding public misconduct hearings is to show their “disciplinary system is open and transparent” and that officers who “breach the standards of professional behaviour, or those where misconduct is found proven, accountable for their actions.”

But if it is possible for officers to “deliberately and knowingly engage in multiple acts of serious misconduct” - as one of the anonymous officers recently made the subject of such proceedings was found to have done - without their identity being known, in a situation where they’ve already retired with no risk of losing their pension, are they really being held accountable?

Why should the reputation of hard-working police officers within the force be tarnished by individuals who have misconducted themselves?

The misconduct hearings for all three of the most recent anonymous officers were chaired by South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Lauren Poultney, who, at the very least, would have had a say in the decision to withhold their identity.

Her determinations on the conduct of all three individuals, all of whom were found to have committed gross misconduct, have now been published. In the case of one of the officers, found to have been “displaying misogynistic behaviours,” Chf Con Poultney states there is “real public concern around misogyny in policing, this concern is both at scale and at depth.”

Given the very “real public concern” around such behaviours, I do find it surprising that she would not see the value in allowing the identity of that individual to be made public. Especially given the fact he was found to have filmed two young women in a Sheffield restaurant, became verbally abusive when challenged, and went on to post the video online using the most pejorative term possible for a woman. What if he has done that to other women?

To be clear, I’m not saying I do not believe there to be any circumstances in which it is appropriate, or necessary, for an officer’s identity to be protected. There definitely are, and Home Office guidance provides examples of a firearms officer where a court has made an anonymity order or where the officer is an undercover officer and their identity should be protected.

On the one hand, police officers are held to a higher standard than regular members of the public, and similar mitigation is routinely used in court reports concerning individuals convicted of a criminal offence whose names are disclosed.

On the other, officers can be more at risk of being targeted because of the job they do.

But the point is, if South Yorkshire Police will not provide the reason an officer’s identity has been withheld, we cannot know if that decision has been made for a valid reason.

We cannot know if the force is fit to police its own police officers, if they are protecting their own by giving officers accused of misconduct an easier ride than they would members of the public.

We cannot know if there is just reason for potentially tainting the reputation of all officers working for the force of the same rank in order to protect the identity of one individual.

In addition, if Home Office guidance suggests that the decision to keep officers anonymous should only be granted in very certain circumstances, and South Yorkshire Police appears to be routinely choosing to anonymise officers, in cases where that criteria does not appear to have been met, and without providing the public with their rationale, is that guidance fit for purpose?

I believe a fundamental shake-up of misconduct procedures is needed to ensure officers’ identities are only withheld in exceptional cases, to ensure genuine accountability and transparency, to root out the bad apples - and protect those officers whose hard work and commendable service to the public is a credit to South Yorkshire Police.

Response from South Yorkshire Chief Constable Lauren Poultney

“Since 2021, when I became Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, the force’s dismissal rate has increased year on year. Between April 2021 and April 2025, 46 officers were dismissed – up by 207 per cent, from 15, in the previous three-and-a-half-year period. This significant increase can be attributed to improved confidence in reporting, improved assessment of complaints and reports, and improved proactive detection of misconduct. These improvements reflect SYP’s robust approach, under my leadership, to ensure our officers’ behaviour is of the highest professional standards.

“To ensure openness and transparency, we publish notice of hearings on our website for a minimum of five working days beforehand, we hold hearings in public, meaning members of the public, over 18, and media may attend, and we publish the outcomes of hearings on our website for a minimum of 28 days afterwards.

“There are circumstances where it is not appropriate to hold a hearing in public. There are also circumstances where a hearing is held in public but it is not appropriate for the officer to be named. In SYP’s proceedings, this is often due to a requirement to safeguard a vulnerable person or child.

“In these cases, the reasons for taking such action are formally recorded and shared with the local policing body (South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority) as part of their Professional Standards Assurance work.“

“Another example, taken from Home Office guidance, is: ‘where the naming of an officer or notice of the subject matter of an investigation could risk the identification of a vulnerable victim or complainant against their wishes’.

“Police forces also have a legal duty of care to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of officers. As such, decisions to privatise a hearing or anonymise an officer may also be based on formal evidence from medical professionals.“And, in some proceedings, officers must be granted anonymity due to existing legal orders.

“Since April 2021, hearings concerning two officers have been held in private, and a total of nine officers have been granted anonymity. While the three most recent outcomes on our website are anonymised, you have my assurance that this is based on the circumstances as opposed to a change in policy or opacity.“In SYP, misconduct proceedings are not influenced by fear or favour, and neither privacy nor anonymity reduce the sanctions our officers face.”