Even if we cannot have access to the hearings, we should be able to see a police tribunal’s detailed reasons for its verdict, argues Home Affairs Correspondent Simon Israel.

Many of you might not think much of the Enfield crime squad saga. The squad, since disbanded, was the subject of a four-year internal Met Police investigation broken up into four parts which looked at the conduct of 15 police officers over a two year period.

The behaviour of some was certainly questionable.

Arming youselves with baseball bats and pickaxe handles to carry out a ‘hard stop’ is certainly not within the regulations it’s more like a scene from Life on Mars.

There were three disciplinary hearings which led to a total nine low-ranked officers being found guilty of the lowest charge of all “discreditable conduct” – not a sackable offence.

Yet not a single mention about the responsibilities of senior officers.

And why I am highlighting this case is my belief that the final misconduct board was equally criticial of them as it was of the lower-ranked officers, yet none was called to account. I only have this information from a source.

I don’t have the board’s judgement. I am not allowed the board’s judgement. I can only report the information a police force chooses to release. The Met, as is their right, never release the full details of a misconduct board’s ruling. This must change.

Senior officers criticised

I am left unable to report fairly the outcome of what became one of the most extensive anti-corruption police inquiries in recent years. I know the chair was highly criticial of senior officers in Enfield at the time but I can’t have access to the details. These officers have since moved on to higher positions.

My coverage merely focuses on the constables and one sergeant who were found guilty.

Journalists are not allowed access to these disciplinary hearings. So the time has come I believe for all misconduct board findings and comments to be published so the process can be as transparent as possible.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is intending to take the rare step of holding in public the disciplinary hearing of PC Simon Harwood who was recently acquitted of causing the death of Ian Tomlinson. The IPCC has the power to do this.

Whatever the outcome at least we will understand why.

That should be the norm. Even if we cannot have access to the hearings, we should be able to see a tribunal’s detailed reasons for its verdict.