A JUDGE has been persuaded by Cleveland Police that key parts of an employment tribunal should be heard in secret.

But in view of the scandals which have tarnished the force over the past decade and a half, it should be easy to understand why that lack of transparency is a cause for concern.

Firearms officer Nadeem Saddique is accusing senior officers in Cleveland Police of a racially motivated campaign to force him out – an allegation which is strenuously denied by the force.

PC Saddique was able to present his claims earlier today (Wednesday) but judge Tudor Garnon ruled in favour of an application by Cleveland Police’s legal team that some evidence should be excluded from open court because it “could do great damage if it came into the public domain”.

That secrecy concerns an Equality Review carried out by Cleveland Police several years ago but an order now prevents the media from reporting how it relates to this tribunal.

The Northern Echo and the BBC have challenged the order, arguing that it is in the public interest for such an important case to be open to public scrutiny.

We have always accepted that, in certain circumstances, it is right for the anonymity of serving officers – especially members of a firearms unit – to be preserved. But an order banning identification of the officers, rather than a total exclusion of the media for parts of the hearing, would surely have sufficed in that respect.

Instead, we are left to question what is being hidden and the inevitable consequence is that the public will be suspicious of some kind of cover-up.

We will, of course, continue to report on this case to its conclusion but, as things stand, the coverage will be incomplete – and the premise that justice must be seen to be done will not be fully satisfied.