We, the undersigned, call on you to immediately lift the reporting restrictions imposed in the recent police misconduct hearing concerning “Officer Y”—the constable found to have paid for sex with likely vulnerable prostitutes in a Thai massage parlour/brothel on three occasions—and to allow the former constable’s identity to be made public.

This case raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and the principle of open justice.

The constable in question was serving at the time of the misconduct and has since been dismissed following the hearing. In these circumstances, the continued granting of anonymity is both disproportionate and unjustified.

In the United Kingdom, the principle of open justice is fundamental. Members of the public are routinely named in court proceedings, often for far less serious matters and regardless of any mental health issues they may have. The public rightly expects that those entrusted with upholding the law, particularly police constables, are subject to at least the same level of scrutiny.

Granting anonymity in this case risks creating the perception that police constables are treated differently from the public they serve. This undermines trust and confidence in policing, particularly at a time when transparency and accountability are more important than ever.

Public confidence in Norfolk Constabulary has already been significantly damaged by incidents such as “Amnesiagate”, alongside the experiences of numerous individuals who have submitted complaints evidencing clear breaches of professional standards, and in some cases potential criminal conduct, only for those complaints to be dismissed following investigations that appeared biased, misrepresented key facts and evidence, and reached conclusions that were plainly unreasonable. Against that backdrop, decisions which appear to shield constables from scrutiny only serve to deepen concerns about accountability and fairness.

We note that Home Office guidance makes clear that blanket reporting restrictions should be avoided and that any restriction must be necessary and proportionate. In this case, it is difficult to see how lifelong anonymity for a dismissed constable meets that threshold.

We further note that respected media organisations, including the Eastern Daily Press, have raised serious objections to this decision, citing concerns that it represents an overreach and sets a dangerous precedent.

For these reasons, we request that you:

 • Review the decision to impose reporting restrictions

 • Properly balance any welfare considerations against the public interest

 • Lift the restriction and permit the constable to be named

Transparency is not optional in a democratic society, it is essential.

The public has a right to know.

Sign this petition to support open justice and equal accountability under the law.