A local news title faced the threat of being barred from police misconduct hearings if it named an officer whose identity was already in the public domain, its editor has claimed.

Brighton & Hove News editor Jo Wadsworth has shared her fears about increasing secrecy surrounding police disciplinary hearings following recent incidents on her patch and elsewhere.

Jo, pictured, raised concerns after two separate incidents involving Sussex Police hearings, one of which saw an officer sacked for gross misconduct while a second escaped with a written warning.

Decisions relating to what can and cannot be reported at such hearings are made by a legally qualified chair (LQC) independent of the force involved, although the officers and forces can make representations on such matters.

But the refusal to name the second officer prompted the title to publish a list of nine questions in relation to the hearing which Sussex Police then refused to answer, with the force saying it is unable to reveal further information without the “explicit direction” of the LQC in charge of the hearings in question.

The News was previously told it was not allowed to report the identity of the sacked officer, DC Jane Walker, despite having already done so previously before covering her disciplinary hearing last year.

Jo says the News was threatened with being barred from future hearings if it named her, with the “health and welfare considerations in respect of the officer” being cited for the decision not to name her.

The News has now subsequently reported DC Walker’s name again as she appears on the College of Policing barred list, a publicly searchable database.

But details remain secret about the second case, in which an officer was let off with a written warning for leaking information about a rape enquiry, again citing “health and welfare considerations.”

Speaking to HTFP, Jo said: “We’ve become increasingly concerned about secrecy during police disciplinary hearings over the past year.

“It’s baffling that you’re banned from reporting names of officers which are already in the public domain – with a threat of not being allowed to attend any future hearings.

“But it’s worrying that other cases are being heard entirely in secret – particularly when the alleged offences could potentially have had a serious impact on a rape investigation.”

The latest incident comes after HTFP reported on Monday how MyLondon journalist Jamie Phillips was barred from a Metropolitan Police misconduct hearing just minutes before it was due to begin.

A Sussex Police spokeswoman said: “Police misconduct procedures are set nationally and Sussex Police publishes information in line with these. In addition, police dismissal information for all police forces is published annually by the College of Policing.

“Only the most serious cases are considered for a misconduct hearing and every hearing has an appointed Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) who is independent of Sussex Police. It is the responsibility of the LQC alone to determine whether or not a hearing is partially or wholly held in public or in private. Any officer attending a hearing has the right to make representations for it to be held in private.

“The chair will base their decision on a range of different factors and on a case by case basis. One example in police regulations 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 and the LQC will always consider the public interest.

“The vast majority of misconduct hearings in Sussex are held in public with public access to this information. Where an LQC directs that a hearing is to be held in private, we are unable to confirm details relating to the proceedings without their explicit direction. This is the national position.

“A national police barred list is held by the College of Policing to prevent those dismissed from policing from re-entering the service. In accordance with regulations, Sussex Police provides information to the College of Policing for consideration of inclusion on the barred list.”