Five Leicestershire Police officers have now faced gross misconduct hearings for contacting sex workers within the past six months – but in the majority of these cases, the public will never know who they are.

Three have since left in disgrace while two have been dismissed without notice.

Half of these hearings have been held in less than two months, with nearly every single one concealing the identities of the officers involved.

Now, the force is under fresh scrutiny over the recurring number of officers caught contacting escorts, as well as the growing secrecy around those involved.

'Inappropriate and unprofessional'

The sex industry is complex and within Great Britain, contacting or paying for prostitution is generally legal.

However, activities relating to prostitution such as soliciting in a public place or kerb crawling are strictly illegal, and those involved in sex work are also often exploited for personal gain or trafficked.

National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) guidance says that the use of people who provide sexual services is "incompatible" with being a police officer or police staff member due to its "close links" to "organised criminality" and the associated risk of potential blackmail.

In recent months, misconduct panels have heard that those rules have been repeatedly ignored by those who have sworn to protect the vulnerable.

PC Noel Chambers confessed to paying for sex on two occasions in September 2024 and June 2025 during a gross misconduct hearing on April 21.

Chief Constable David Sandall said at the time that Chambers' actions were "akin to criminal conduct" before concluding that Mr Chambers would have been sacked without notice, had he not resigned.

Another officer also faced allegations of contacting sex workers after a hearing was held in August 2026.

He would have received a final written warning but instead resigned.

A month later, on September 23, another officer was sacked after he was found to be contacting sex workers in order to live out a "fantasy".

Ch Cons Sandall, acting as chair, later said that the amount of sexual messages sent showed a "pattern of behaviour" due to the length of time it had been happening.

He was subsequently sacked due to the repeated nature of the texts being "exploitative".

A couple of weeks later, on October 6, it was heard that Officer A texted a prostitute called "English Emma" in September 2024.

It was later revealed that the number was connected to a pimp who would later be convicted.

He was later dismissed without notice after Ch Cons Sandall ruled the officer "intentionally" contacted a number connected to sexual services and knew he was doing so.

And just weeks later, another former officer was found to have committed gross misconduct at a hearing on November 5.

The hearing heard how the officer's background meant they should have known the risks around contacting sex workers due to that background in dealing with sensitive issues around child abuse, trauma and safeguarding.

However, the hearing revealed how they "persistently" tried to contact sex workers after a night out despite telling investigators that they lent their phone to someone they didn't know, which is why these numbers were called.

Chair of the panel Julia Debenham ruled that the officer had been "dishonest" in their submissions. The officer did not issue a formal response to the allegations, nor did they attend the hearings.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct's (IOPC) director of engagement, Emily Barry, said the officer "would have known his behaviour was completely unacceptable" and said such cases "have the real potential to impact on public confidence in the police".

As the police complaints watchdog for England and Wales, the IOPC investigates the most serious complaints and conduct matters involving the force, and aims to set the standards by which the police should handle complaints.

Responding to the recent rise in sex worker hearings, Ch Cons Sandall told the LDRS that the five officers' actions were "completely unacceptable", and the force had taken "strong, proactive action" to root out the behaviour.

He added: "We have not hidden away from this – we have taken the front foot and ensured that those who have purposefully chosen not to work at the standards which are rightly expected in our profession are brought to account.

"Our Professional Standards Department also work closely with all departments across force to ensure training and communication is being provided in regards to the professional standards which are expected, how to meet these and the action which will be taken if standards are breached.

"It is important to mention that we do this proactive investigative work of course for our communities and our public to ensure that the highest trust and confidence can be placed in our officers and staff. But we are also doing it for our own force.

"We see amazing things being done by the vast majority of our officers and staff each and every day to help people and to protect people – which adds even more to the importance of rooting out those in force who are not providing the level of trust, service and dedication which is rightly expected.".

The rising veil of anonymity

In four of these five hearings, officers have been made anonymous – meaning the public and the press will probably never know who they are.

It is understood that for two of these hearings, representations were made around the officer's own mental health and the mental health of family members.

Another order was made due to ongoing legal proceedings. The LDRS requested the name of this officer to follow such proceedings but no name has yet been received.

The LDRS was permitted to inspect the written rationales for two of the rulings, but was expressly barred from taking notes or keeping copies.

A request was made to access these documents but this was refused.

Rules state that anonymity must be granted in exceptional circumstances and require compelling, independent evidence of severe harm while Leicestershire Police's own website states that these hearings are "open and transparent",

However, the LDRS and LeicestershireLive have been forced to repeatedly challenge these orders and fight for information around why they have been made.

Within two of the representations, we argued that the recent spate of anonymity orders is eroding public confidence in policing and emphasising the high bar that must be met for such orders to be granted.

There is now little recourse to further challenge these rulings, as it would require an expensive legal battle and a potential judicial review.

In relation to our anonymity concerns, Ch Cons Sandall said that decisions to grant anonymity to an officer "is not one that is taken lightly".

He added: "The chair of a hearing does need to take all representations made regarding anonymity into account and make a decision on this. This can be complex and difficult decision-making often including hearing from a number of people including, for example, medical experts where welfare has been raised as a reason for anonymity and considering the full impact of anonymity being granted or being refused.

"The decision on anonymity is not made based on the force's reputation – it is made based on the representations made alongside the public interest element and the need to remain open, honest and transparent.

"In ensuring open justice, all of the hearings mentioned have been heard in public with the hearing open to the media and the public to attend. When an application has been received to hold the hearing in private, this has been declined by the chair. This is again in line with the Police (Conduct) Regulations."

The growing threat of secrecy

Police secrecy around misconduct isn't new, as media organisations across the country have expressed major concerns about why the continued secrecy surrounding these hearings is breaking down public trust in the police.

And it isn't the first time the secrecy surrounding misconduct at Leicestershire Police has been called into question.

Back in 2025, families of three people killed by Valdo Calocane branded Leicestershire Police misconduct proceedings "farcical", saying they were "very, very unhappy" with secrecy surrounding misconduct hearings.

The meeting examined how Leicestershire officers investigated an assault in Kegworth by Calocane in May 2023, before he went on to kill three people in Nottingham.

The media were also barred entry to these meetings despite formal requests to attend, with family members of those who were killed saying they were initially had to "ask – almost insist – on being invited".

Natalie Fahy, current editor-in-chief at Leicestershire Live, said the victims' families were at the centre of the calls for transparency and that they deserved.

She said: "For them to be communicated with so poorly and denied the chance to properly attend these hearings is a disgrace.

"Transparency has been lacking from so many public bodies throughout the aftermath of these horrific attacks. Leicestershire Police need to let media into the misconduct hearing and name the officers involved."

An IOPC spokesperson said: "There is an expectation for misconduct hearings to be held in public and participants to be identified. This reflects the principles of open justice, transparency, and public confidence in police accountability.

"Disciplinary panels and their Chairs must consider the relevant police conduct regulations and Home Office guidance and balance the public interest in openness against any concerns for the individual's rights, welfare or safety, or outstanding proceedings.

"Anonymity should not be granted merely because publication may be embarrassing, damaging to reputation, or distressing."