Police chiefs prevented journalists from revealing the full name of a constable who failed to properly investigate a stalking victim’s reports prior to her murder.

A Sussex Police disciplinary panel rejected an appeal by media organisations to allow them to reveal the full name of the officer, known only as ‘PC Mills’, who resigned prior to the hearing into claims he failed to look into five reports by 19-year-old Shania Grice that she was being stalked before her ex-boyfriend slit her throat in 2016.

Lawyers acting on behalf of PC Mills argued being identified would have an adverse effect on him and made the request in order to protect the “feelings and the welfare” of his young family.

Louise Ravenscroft, solicitor acting on behalf of Sussex Police – which brought disciplinary action against Mills – supported the application.

She told a hearing it was “not in the public interest” to fully identify the officer involved and added that it should be to PC Mills’ “credit” that he did not ask for his full name to be withheld.

The restriction was granted by disciplinary panel chairman Chiew Yin Jones, despite journalists present arguing there was “substantial public interest” in fully and openly reporting the proceedings and properly identifying the officer.

Those present, including Press Association South-East correspondent Flora Thompson, pictured, had argued the submissions did not meet the legal threshold for a restriction as they would not adversely affect the ability for the proceedings to go ahead.

In her report of the heating, Flora, who previously worked for Brighton daily The Argus, wrote: “The force initially decided to restrict the number of press entering the hearing – claiming there was not enough space – but eventually allowed all present representatives to attend proceedings.”

Other organisations present included the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, several national newspapers, and local media outlets.

Flora told HTFP: “This hearing focused on how Shana Grice was so fatally let down by police before she was murdered. And yet much time and effort was spent ensuring the officer in question was protected. The decision sets a disturbing precedent for the openness and transparency of these proceedings.

“The basic principle that justice needs to be seen to be done seems to have been forgotten in making this unnecessary reporting restriction. How can police officers as publicly funded servants be held accountable if they cannot be identified for serious breaches of professional standards?

“Equally perplexing is the decision by Sussex Police, which brought the disciplinary action against the officer, to support the identity ban despite telling the hearing his actions brought the force into disrepute. The arguments made for the officer were not compelling or based on any evidence and did not meet the threshold of the current guidelines. They would not have been accepted in a court of law.

“Any suspicions members of the public may have about a culture of closing rank if scrutiny threatens to expose uncomfortable truths about police failings are simply perpetuated by this ruling.”

PC Mills had denied the accusations, but resigned before the hearing. The panel ruled his actions amounted to gross misconduct.

Sussex police and crime commissioner Katy Bourne refused to comment on the hearing or the direction made by the panel to withhold the officer’s full name when approached by PA.