Journalists have been refused the right to identify details about a police officer who was disciplined for making discriminatory and offensive remarks to a colleague.

The Derbyshire Constabulary officer was granted anonymity – denying the public the ability to know their identity, age and gender – ahead of a misconduct hearing at which they were spared from the sack over their behaviour.

The decision to hold the hearing in private was made by presiding chair because it involved “hearing evidence about the private lives of those concerned” and because “no member of the public [was] affected by the conduct complained of”.

However, the decision has prompted Derby Telegraph local democracy reporter Nigel Slater to question whether the chairs of such hearings have sufficient media literacy to make such decisions.

Nigel, pictured, told HTFP: “The issue of privacy in these circumstances can be controversial. Police officers serve the public, so then maybe there is an argument to say that it should be in the public interest if there are allegations for an officer to answer over their conduct on the job.

“The problem here is who makes that call? In this instance the legally qualified and independent chair said the allegations did not involve the member of the public. But are they qualified to make that decision?

“Do they have media/news knowledge – do they know what is and is not considered newsworthy?

“There could be one tiny element of that hearing that may be very newsworthy – but the public will never know if the media are not allowed to attend.

“Inquests and court cases are open to the public – and it is journalists who make the decision on whether or not to attend to cover. If a coroner or a judge started saying cases were being held in private there would be uproar as regards to press freedom.

“The problem my news team has had previously when things like this happen is that there is usually no way of debating it. Once the police say it is private then that is the final word.”

The force has revealed three out of five allegations were proven against the officer in question and amounted to a misconduct offence.

They were given a final written warning over their conduct.

Jayne Salt, who chaired the hearing, said before it was held: “The exploration of the alleged conduct involves hearing evidence about the private lives of those concerned. No member of the public is said to have been affected by the conduct complained of.

“In the particular circumstances of this case, the general public interest in the conduct of police officers can be met by the assurance that this conduct is subject to the scrutiny of an independent disciplinary panel. Balancing those factors against the need for transparency, a decision has been made that the hearing should be held in private.”

A 2021 study by Brighton Argus journalist Jody Doherty-Cove and The New Statesman’s Michael Goodier revealed 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.

So far this year, Reach plc website Dorset Live and independent title the Brighton & Hove News have faced struggles in accessing information relating to police misconduct hearings.

A Derbyshire Constabulary spokesman said: “An independent legally qualified chair leads gross misconduct hearings and it was the decision of the chair, not of the Constabulary, that this hearing should be conducted in private.

“A full written decision from the chair as to why this decision was taken was published on the force website.

“Where the force receives reports of alleged misconduct officers will investigate and, where appropriate, bring cases of misconduct against officers and staff.

“In line with national policy of misconduct hearings are led by an independent legally qualified chair who is entirely separate to the police force.”