Journalists have been denied the right to name a former police officer accused of having sex while on duty.

The identity of the ex-officer has been kept secret from the Oxford Mail and other news organisations ahead of a Thames Valley Police misconduct hearing next month.

Announcing the decision, hearing chairman Ogheneruona Iguyovwe said the “individual welfare of those concerned in the hearing” outweighed the public interest in the accused being named.

In a press notice issued to the Mail, Thames Valley Police said: “In adopting this position, the chair has carried out a careful balancing exercise involving factors of public interest, transparency and scrutiny of police misconduct versus the individual welfare of those concerned in the hearing and the ability of a misconduct panel to effectively evaluate all of the evidence.”

The move comes amid ongoing industry debate about the transparency of police misconduct hearings.

The National Union of Journalists demanded an official investigation into the matter last year after The Times revealed that one in four such hearings were being held in private.

An investigation by Jody Doherty-Cove, then of Brighton daily The Argus, and The New Statesman’s Michael Goodier previously 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.

And just two months ago, Hampshire police and crime commissioner Donna Jones pledged to hold misconduct hearings in public after a probe into previously unreported police dismissals by Southern Daily Echo digital reporter Maya George.

The officer, who was a probationer police constable at the time of the alleged offences, is said to have begun an inappropriate relationship with a member of the public, made unauthorised searches relating to them on police computer systems and “engaged in sexual activity” with another person while on duty between 12 March and 29 June last year.

The hearing will take place over three days, beginning on 9 November.

It will decide whether the officer is guilty of gross misconduct and, if so, whether they would have been sacked had they still been a serving constable.

HTFP has approached the Mail for further comment.