16/04/2026
This is Ian Wright, Chair of Cleveland Police’s Misconduct Panel.
Mr Wright appears to believe it is acceptable to use his position to shield the identities of officers facing misconduct proceedings. Yet police misconduct hearings in the UK are, by design, intended to be held in public — ensuring transparency, accountability, and public confidence. There is a clear presumption that officers subject to gross misconduct hearings should be named.
While anonymity can be justified in limited circumstances — such as where a court order is in place, or where the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) determines there are legitimate legal or safety concerns — these exceptions should remain just that: exceptions.
However, the latest hearing is once again being conducted with the officer’s identity withheld, despite the case reportedly involving extremely serious allegations and potentially leading to dismissal from the force.
This raises serious questions about transparency within Cleveland Police. The public has a right to know who is being held accountable, particularly in cases of significant misconduct.
Shielding identities in such circumstances risks undermining trust and fuels concerns about a culture of protectionism within the force. If those in positions of oversight are prepared to allow this level of secrecy, it calls into question whether accountability is truly being upheld.
As far as we are concerned, Mr Wright’s approach is fundamentally wrong. In matters of this seriousness, transparency is not optional — it is essential. His continued position as Chair of the misconduct panel must now be brought into question in the interests of public confidence and safety & he must resign from the post !
https://www.teesdurhampost.co.uk/post/gross-misconduct-hearing-looms-for-officer-accused-of-sexual-touching
