A secret hearing outlining allegations of misconduct against a serving police officer has gone ahead despite protests from a local news website.

The Essex Police officer faced a panel last week to face claims he committed multiple breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

The panel, chaired by Bedfordshire assistant chief constable John Murphy, was held in private despite an application by Reach website Essex Live to prevent this.

Editor Katrina Chilver and reporter Matt Lee, who is covering the story, had previously explained in an editorial why they were calling for the hearing to take place in public.

They wrote: “Police officers have the highest degree of public trust placed in them, given the powers, including a monopoly on the use of force, granted to them.

“We feel there is therefore a very strong public interest in reporting on misconduct hearings when they happen, when officers are accused of breaching that crucial trust.

“We also feel being able to report on hearings like this is important for transparency. This is an individual in a position of power through their work, which they are alleged to have abused.

“Our call for transparency comes against the backdrop of a number of officers in the county, and the country facing misconduct hearings and being banned from the profession.”

In his ruling that the case should be heard in private, assistant chief constable Murphy cited the officer’s right to privacy, referencing Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which says everyone has the right to respect for his/her private and family life.

Katrina and Matt wrote: “We of course, do not disagree with Article 8 as a principle, but believe it does not apply here.

“This hearing is not in regards to the officer’s private life. It concerns allegations that he has breached policing standards. This concerns the people of Essex, who have a right to know if the officers they may encounter are accused of misconduct.

“Even if Article 8 did apply, it would have to be balanced against the rights of Article 10, which says everyone has the right to freedom of expression. It says this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

“This order has also been made to protect the identities of the complainants, and while this is something we are fully in support of, this is no justifiable reason to exclude the media from attending entirely.

“Our reporters attend court hearings everyday that are held in public, and take precautions in their reporting to ensure certain people are not identified. It is common place for an order to be made in court to prevent the identification of an individual, and this is something we co-operate with as standard practice.”

Posting on X, Katrina added: “We are happy to follow orders, and play by the rules, but there must be transparency. Barring media from the hearing entirely is not transparent.”

An Essex Police spokesperson said: “Decisions around whether to impose reporting restrictions and/or hold misconduct hearings in private,  are decisions taken by the presiding independent chair.

“In this particular instance, the chair’s decision will be reviewed at the outcome of the hearing.

“Essex Police always seeks to be transparent around these matters, publicising hearings before they happen so media can register to attend, publicising where hearings have reporting restrictions to give media the opportunity to make representations, as they did in this matter, and publicising hearing outcomes, all in line with Police Regulations.”