Teesside & Durham Post challenges anonymity order of former Cleveland officer facing Dismissal...

The culture of silence and anonymity protecting Teesside’s ‘rogue’ extremist officers must end, says the Teesside & Durham Post..

11th Feb 2026

The Teesside & Durham Post has this week written to the chair of Cleveland Police’s misconduct panel seeking to lift the anonymity order granted to a former Cleveland Police officer facing a public disciplinary hearing next month, arguing the current reporting restrictions fail to meet the public interest test.

The request comes ahead of a three-day misconduct hearing scheduled to take place in March at Scotswood House in Thornaby, where its claimed “Former Officer X” is due to appear in relation to allegations of gross misconduct relating to their treatment of two probationary officers back in 2022.

While the hearing itself will be held in public, the identity of the former officer has been shielded from disclosure under an anonymity order, meaning that neither the press nor members of the public will be able to report their name unless that restriction is lifted.

Scotswood House Thornaby, where the Misconduct hearing is set to be held

In correspondence sent to the panel chair, Mr Ian Wright, the Teesside & Durham Post has challenged that position, contending that there is no longer a compelling justification for concealing the officer’s identity, particularly given that they are no longer employed by Cleveland Police.

In a statement issued alongside the submission, the Teesside & Durham Post said:

“Time and again we’re seeing officers from Cleveland Police being brought before misconduct hearings that in the vast majority of the time results in those officers, former or otherwise, being sacked. The public rightly deserve to know who these officers are and what danger they’ve posed to the public either in their role as an officer or what danger they continue to present in their civilian life after being employed by the force with no public confidence. We have written to the chair of the misconduct panel seeking the anonymity order be lifted and will continue to request such anonymity is lifted in all future cases.”

The intervention is said to be raising wider questions about transparency in police disciplinary proceedings and whether anonymity should routinely be granted to officers facing allegations of serious misconduct.

Under current regulations, misconduct hearings are held in public in order to promote openness and accountability, yet reporting restrictions are frequently imposed where panels determine that naming an officer could prejudice proceedings, infringe on privacy rights, or serve no legitimate public interest.

However, media organisations and campaigners have increasingly argued that such restrictions undermine public confidence, particularly in cases involving alleged abuse of authority, mistreatment of colleagues, or behaviour that could have broader implications for policing standards.

The Teesside & Durham Post has made clear that its challenge is not limited to this individual case, signalling its intention to contest the anonymity orders in future misconduct hearings involving Cleveland Police.

A decision on whether to lift the restriction will rest with Mr Wright, who will chair the panel, and any ruling could set an important precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.

The misconduct panel hearing is expected to examine allegations that the former officer subjected two probationary colleagues to unwanted or inappropriate behaviour between June and October 2022, conduct which, if proven, would amount to gross misconduct. Its also widely expected that if the allegations are proven, the officer would be added to the Police Barred List, meaning they would never be able to apply to become a police officer in England ever again.

For now, the identity of the officer remains concealed, but the the challenge ensures that the issue of anonymity itself will be under scrutiny when the hearing begins.

What Do You Think ?

Should anonymity orders be lifted on officers who no longer work for Cleveland Police & are appearing before a disciplinary panel ?

• YES
• NO