An editor has hit out at a lack of transparency at police misconduct hearings after a force refused to reveal where the alleged incidents under investigation had taken place.

Brighton & Hove News editor Jo Wadsworth has been locked in a fresh battle with Sussex Police after fighting to find out whether a hearing she wanted to cover was relevant to her patch.

Jo has also criticised the force’s policy towards such hearings, revealing that journalists have to apply to attend and that officers under scrutiny are “regularly anonymised”.

The new row comes after Jo was threatened in 2021 with being barred from Sussex Police hearings if she named an officer whose identity was already in the public domain.

In a Twitter thread, Jo revealed the force no longer includes the locations of alleged incidents on notifications of hearings, and that she was refused further information after making repeated requests about a case she was trying to cover remotely.

Wrote Jo: “I had to decide if it was worth going all the way to Lewes to cover a case which I still had no idea was relevant or not.  I asked for the location again, and was finally told it was being withheld to protect the identity of the officer

“Sussex Police’s lawyer said neither they nor the complainants had any objection.  So the panel decided to “compromise” and disclose the incidents had happened in … East Sussex.

“I explained how local media works – that a story concerning events in, say Hastings is of little or no interest to readers in Brighton, and vice versa.  Finally, the panel conceded my points, and revealed the officer had been based in … Hastings. So most of my day effectively wasted.”

Added Jo:  “I’ve asked why locations aren’t given these days, and haven’t had an answer. But whatever the reason, the effect is to make it far more likely that most disciplinary hearings – the ones which won’t get national media interest – won’t be covered.

“I’ve even been threatened with never being allowed into a hearing again if I report facts already in the public domain. Sussex Police’s approach to these hearings suggests they’d be happy with this.

“Notifications are on an obscure website page, there’s a deadline to apply to attend, no entry if late, officers are regularly anonymised, and the chances to appeal these decisions are very limited.

“Maybe tweeting about it might get a response and things will improve? I hope so. But I’m not holding my breath.”

In response, a Sussex Police spokeswoman said: “We remain fully committed to transparency in misconduct proceedings and to working to within both the spirit and law of Police Regulations.

“To this end, we have worked with local media representatives to co-create a protocol that clarifies roles, responsibilities and our commitment to transparency.

“Police regulations permit, in limited circumstances, hearings to be held in private or for officers subject to gross misconduct proceedings to remain anonymous. The hearing involving officer X was not held in private.

“The circumstances relating to granting of anonymity are wide ranging and include matters of health, wider security or the privacy and wellbeing of individuals involved in proceedings including vulnerable victims and witnesses.

“In this case the legally qualified chair, independent of Sussex Police, made their decision based on factors presented at a pre-hearing.

“There is no provision currently within Police Regulations for third parties, including media representatives, to attend pre-hearings and this is outside the control of Sussex Police.”