We're banned from telling you the names of two police officers accused of 'worst misconduct'...it's just not good enough

Today BristolLive calls out an outrageous decision by a police misconduct tribunal to grant anonymity to two former police officers who allegedly used "unnecessary force" against a vulnerable woman having a mental health crisis on Clifton Suspension Bridge.

The two Avon & Somerset ex-constables are accused of gross misconduct over the incident, which was featured in the recent Channel 4 documentary series To Catch a Copper, where a film crew spent four years following the force's police standards department investigating dodgy cops. Allegations the officers deny.

A misconduct hearing, which opened on Monday, June 17, and is being held in public, was told one of the ex-constables used Pava artificial pepper-spray which causes severe pain and is supposed to be for self-defence on the woman whilst she was in the back of a police car after the pair arrested her for causing a public nuisance.

In harrowing scenes broadcast in January, the victim was handcuffed, forcibly restrained against the vehicle with what appears to be a hand to her throat and then had a "spit hood" placed over her head before being Pava-sprayed by the female officer in the back of the car.

Later scenes from body-worn camera footage at the police station, where the female was taken into custody on December 4, 2021, showed the victim sobbing uncontrollably and screaming, claiming that she was being raped during a search.

The then-chairman of the constabulary's Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, was shown putting his hands to his face in disbelief as he watched the video and told the Channel 4 crew: "It's the worst misconduct I think I've ever seen."

Lawyers acting for the officers involved first tried to have the proceedings held in private. Rightly, the misconduct panel rejected that argument. However the lawyers were successful in having the identity of the officers protected.

Not only are we not allowed to tell you who the two officers are, we cannot tell you why because the reasons for the decision to grant anonymity are deemed "non-public information".

What we can say is BristolLive strongly disagrees with police officers of any rank getting anonymity when they are brought before a disciplinary tribunal.

What we can say is that part of the reasons relied on were Home Office guidelines for police misconduct hearings that date back to February 2020.

We say these guidelines are out of date. They relate to an era before the shocking cases of serving Met Police officers Wayne Couzens, who kidnapped, raped and murdered Sarah Everard, and serial rapist and abuser David Carrick to name but two.

These appalling cases and others horrified the nation, drained public confidence in policing, particularly in situations involving vulnerable women, and led to a major Home Office review of the police misconduct system, which now might be overhauled. Let's wait to see how watered down that is.

The Home Office guidelines include clauses that give police tribunals a power to shield officers accused of wrongdoing from public scrutiny.

It's a protection afforded only to police officers in a court system designed for the police and one that is not available to any member of the public in a criminal court case. If this were a criminal case every adult defendant is named and the proceedings reported to the public fairly and freely.

The design of the tribunal in this case is in stark contrast with the decisions of the Avon & Somerset force's own top officer, Chief Constable Sarah Crew.

Back in November and December 2022, BristolLive called her out when she granted anonymity to officers in misconduct hearings, one of which was held in private to exclude the public and media.

To her very great credit, she agreed with our submissions on the principles of open justice and clear public interest and overturned those orders.

Ever since, every single officer accused of misconduct facing a hearing before the chief constable has been named and the hearings held in public.

In the case of "Former PC A and Former PC B", as we have to call them, the tribunal has decided not to follow the example set by Chief Constable Sarah Crew.

The chief constable understands completely that there is far greater risk of undermining public confidence in the constabulary and wider police service, along with reputational harm, by closing the court doors and protecting officers accused of breaching professional standards than in letting all the facts be released.

The longstanding principle is simple. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Imagine if Couzens and Carrick had faced public disciplinary hearings, maybe their monstrous crimes could have been stopped. We don't know, but we say the current system that affords anonymity for police officers facing disciplinary hearings is not fit for purpose. We argued this point and many others with the tribunal ahead of this week's hearing but to no avail.

Whilst the tribunal acknowledges this case concerns "matters of grave public concern" and rejected an application by the officers' barristers for the hearing to be held behind closed doors, holding the hearing in public while banning the identification of the alleged culprits simply nullifies holding the hearing in public in the first place because we cannot report details that may identify them.

We say this is a public hearing in name only. How can proceedings be transparent if we cannot name those facing allegations of serious misconduct? The public interest is not served.

These are two officers who were called to a woman attempting to jump off the Clifton Suspension Bridge in an act of desperation. She needed help urgently. That help came in the form of "Former PC A and Former PC B". The woman was arrested, handcuffed, Pava-sprayed, had a hood put over her head and treated like a violent criminal.

The (former) officers dispute these allegations and it is right that they have a free and fair hearing. But that does not mean that they should be anonymous.

Inspector Jon Owen, the constabulary's mental health lead, said on To Catch a Copper as he watched the video: "It looks awful because it is awful."

Mr Loker told the filmmakers: "How can anybody with a reasonable mind say that any part of this is acceptable?

"She's clearly in crisis, this young lady.

"It shows a level of malevolence, and they dehumanise her.

"That's the hardest part for me they don't treat her as a human being."

Back in November 2022, almost a year after the incident took place, Chief Constable Sarah Crew said at an unrelated police misconduct hearing: "It is important for open justice that we bring as much into the public domain as we can."

Ma'am, we applaud you for that. Sadly, the police misconduct hearing serving Avon & Somerset doesn't seem to have got the memo.