MISCONDUCT hearings involving police officers have been held in public since May 2015 as part of efforts to “improve openness and accountability in policing and ensure public confidence” – a direct quote from the North Yorkshire Police website.

How then, is it appropriate that the complaints relating to the county’s police and crime commissioner Julia Mulligan should be examined in a forum not open to the public or the press?

It is arguably even more important that concerns about democratically elected officials are publicly scrutinised than those relating to private individuals, albeit ones responsible for upholding law and order.

The reason given for the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel Complaints Sub-Committee hearing taking place in private is because it would involve “the likely disclosure of exempt information” as defined by the Local Government Act 1972.

There could well be a strong public interest argument to counter such an exemption, but if the nature of the complaints is not being disclosed, then it is nigh-on impossible to make a case to be allowed access.

Ms Mulligan’s national responsibilities for integrity amongst police and crime commissioners include transparency, ethics and police complaints. If the same standard of openness which applies to complaints about officers does not apply to her, it is hard to see how the accountability and public confidence the service is striving for can be maintained.