Journalists have demanded greater transparency after an investigation involving the regional press found almost one in four sacked police officers’ identities are being kept secret.

Jody Doherty-Cove, of Brighton daily The Argus, and The New Statesman’s Michael Goodier found 212 police staff across England and Wales dismissed for gross misconduct had left service without either their names or the reason for their sacking being made public.

Jody and Michael discovered some of the officers were dismissed in private meetings away from the press and public, or were granted anonymity, while others were sacked in supposedly public meetings, or had notices placed online, of which there is no current record.

Both The Argus and The News Statesman have now exposed some of the sacked officers after discovering their names on the College of Policing’s barred list, while regional journalists have led calls for change on police transparency in light of the findings.

Jody, pictured, said: “Police officers – rightly so – are awarded some of the highest esteem of any profession.

“Those officers, the vast majority, suffer when the actions of a few fall short of this standard and bring shame to their force as a whole by bringing it into disrepute.

“Transparency, one of the College of Policing’s four key values for serving, protects those officers.

“The public needs to know the details about who has been dismissed and what for. This is so we can trust our forces up and down the country are maintaining their high standards.”

Regulations state that officers’ names must be placed on the publicly available barred list when they are dismissed, but the list’s current set-up means someone can only be found if a member of the public already knows the name of the officer they are searching for.

This is in contrast to the medical, education and legal professions, all of which publish publicly available notices whenever someone is barred that include the name of the person barred.

Jody and Michael found the offences officers were dismissed for included domestic abuse, sexual harassment, possessing and distributing indecent images of children, racism, colluding with suspects, engaging in sexual relationships with vulnerable people, excessive use of force against suspects and members of the public, breaching coronavirus restrictions and drink driving.

Michael said: “Police officers ought to be held to at least the same standard as those in other public professions such as medical practitioners and teachers, who are far more transparent with misconduct.

“New regulations meaning the press have to be notified about private hearings are welcome.

“However there needs to be a clear consistent standard over what constitutes harm across all police forces, matching that of the College of Police who have seen fit to upload private cases to their so-called public list even though forces have been gagged from publication by independent chairs or Chief Constables.”

HTFP reported in May how independent title Brighton & Hove News faced the threat of being barred from police misconduct hearings if it named an officer whose identity was already in the public domain.

News co-editor Frank Le Duc told The News Statesman: “The misconduct hearings for the most serious matters should be held in public in a similar fashion to, say, a professional disciplinary hearing for those practising medicine.

“These hearings should take place in public in recognition of the extra powers, responsibilities and duties entrusted to those working in those fields.

“In practice, there seems to be a growing number of reasons put forward for making exceptions and keeping information, including people’s names, from the public – in whose name these services are carried out, and whose taxes pay for them.”

Ben Fishwick, of Portsmouth daily The News, was unable to report on a police officer who was sacked for pursuing “private personal relationships” with women he met on duty because he was given anonymity at his hearing.

Ben said: “Greater transparency at police misconduct hearings is badly needed – the way the current system operates can still give the impression forces can mark their own homework, and at the same time choose if anyone gets to know about wrongdoing.

“Many hearings are run by independent legally qualified chairs, but even then they will still be joined by a senior police officer from the same force as the subject of proceedings.

“Some are run by chief constables doing their best to sit in judgement of members of their own constabulary – the conflict of interest in deciding guilt, punishment and publicity is just too great to continue.”

The decision to hold a case in private is usually made by an independent legally qualified chair, but some “accelerated case hearings” are run by chief constables, who take the decision themselves whether to keep the hearing secret.

The National Police Chiefs Council declined to give a statement to The New Statesman, but said there was no conflict of interest when chief constables chair accelerated hearings, as this only happens when evidence against the officer is incontrovertible.

A spokesperson for the College of Policing said: “Details of officers and special constables (but not police staff) who have been dismissed for conduct matters are published by the College of Policing, unless certain exemptions apply. The list is updated monthly, with names added by the end of the following month.

“As agreed with the Information Commissioner’s Office, the public list is searchable. As details of police hearings and outcomes are now largely published on force websites and reported in the media, the names of individuals who are dismissed from policing are generally already in the public domain.

“In accordance with the legislation, the details held on the public list will include the name and force of the officer concerned, their rank and number, the date and reason for dismissal. Information will be held on the public list for five years from the date of publication.”