Why Weren’t They Named? Northamptonshire Police Questioned Over Five Criminally Charged Officers

Northamptonshire Police has been asked to explain why five police officers charged with criminal offences were apparently not publicly named in press releases — after the force said their cases “did not progress to trial”.

The five cases account for more than 70% of the seven police officers Northamptonshire Police says were charged with criminal offences during 2024.

The figures were obtained by Misconduct999 through a Freedom of Information request specifically seeking the number of police officers charged during 2024.

The request was submitted in February 2025, but Northamptonshire Police did not provide its response until September 2026.

The case comes amid wider scrutiny by Misconduct999 of transparency surrounding police misconduct proceedings, including a series of recent cases involving applications for officer anonymity, decisions to hold hearings wholly or partly in private, and questions over whether established procedures have been properly followed.

Against that wider backdrop, Misconduct999 is examining whether police officers charged with criminal offences are being treated differently for publicity purposes from ordinary members of the public — and, if so, why.

Five of seven cases had no press release

After receiving the FOI response, Misconduct999 asked Northamptonshire Police why a press release appeared to have been issued in relation to only one of the seven officers.

We also asked whether any of the other cases had been publicly announced or whether the officers had been named by Northamptonshire Police in another way.

In response, a Northamptonshire Police spokesperson said:

“Of the seven people charged, five of the cases did not progress to trial and so press releases were not issued in those instances.

“We issued a press release about the court proceedings relating to one case, previously sent.

“A trial date is set for January 2027 for the seventh case, we will issue a press release nearer to the time.”

That means five of the seven cases — 71% — did not result in a press release, according to Northamptonshire Police’s own response.

But the explanation raises a further question: why should the fact that a criminal case did not ultimately progress to trial explain why an officer’s charge was not publicised in a press release at the time it was brought?

Charge — not trial

Being charged and standing trial are not the same thing.

Once a person has been charged with a criminal offence, there are a number of ways in which proceedings can subsequently conclude without a contested trial.

A defendant may plead guilty. Proceedings may be discontinued or withdrawn. A prosecution may otherwise conclude without a trial taking place.

So saying that five cases “did not progress to trial” does not, by itself, explain what happened to those five prosecutions after charge.

Nor does it explain why the fact that those five police officers had been charged was apparently not publicised through a press release at the time.

There is an obvious hypothetical difficulty with linking publicity to whether a case ultimately reaches trial.

If a police officer were charged with a serious criminal offence and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, there would be no contested trial.

Would that mean the original charge was never proactively publicised?

Misconduct999 has asked Northamptonshire Police to clarify its position.

What does College of Policing guidance say?

College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice says individuals charged with an offence should be named on charge, subject to exceptions including an exceptional legitimate policing purpose or reporting restrictions.

It says charging information should be provided as soon as possible at the point of charge.

There is also specific guidance covering criminal investigations involving police officers.

For criminal offences committed on duty, details of officers charged or summonsed should be proactively released.

For off-duty conduct, the guidance provides for proactive public statements where an officer is charged with serious criminality or an offence capable of seriously damaging public trust and confidence.

Even in relation to relatively minor off-duty allegations, the guidance provides for information to be confirmed to the media if requested.

The national guidance therefore focuses substantially on the point of charge, rather than requiring a case subsequently to reach a contested trial before information is released.

That makes Northamptonshire Police’s explanation that five cases “did not progress to trial and so press releases were not issued” particularly significant.

Are police officers being treated differently?

The information currently available does not establish that Northamptonshire Police deliberately gave the five officers preferential treatment.

But it does create an appearance which requires explanation.

Police forces routinely publish the identities of members of the public who have been charged with criminal offences in cases considered appropriate for publicity.

If Northamptonshire Police publicises ordinary defendants following charge but takes a different approach to its own officers — or waits to establish whether proceedings involving an officer will progress to trial — that would represent a potentially significant difference in treatment.

Misconduct999 is seeking to establish whether that is what happened.

There may be legitimate individual explanations.

Proceedings may have been discontinued shortly after charge. Reporting restrictions or other legal considerations may have applied. The nature and seriousness of the alleged offences may also have been relevant to individual publication decisions.

But Northamptonshire Police has not yet provided those explanations.

What happened to the five officers?

There is another important unanswered question.

Northamptonshire Police has said the five cases “did not progress to trial”, but it has not explained what the eventual criminal justice outcomes were.

Misconduct999 has therefore asked the force to clarify what happened in each case.

We have asked whether proceedings resulted in guilty pleas, were discontinued or withdrawn, or concluded in some other way.

The distinction matters.

An officer who pleads guilty has been convicted of a criminal offence despite there being no contested trial. Conversely, proceedings which are discontinued result in a very different position.

Simply saying a case did not progress to trial does not distinguish between those fundamentally different outcomes.

Force asked to explain its policy

Northamptonshire Police has also been asked whether any of the five officers was publicly named when charged or at any subsequent stage, despite no press release having been issued.

We have asked whether the force applies the same criteria when deciding whether to publicise criminal charges against its own police officers as it does when dealing with other members of the public.

And we have put one direct question to the force arising from its original explanation:

Is it Northamptonshire Police’s policy or practice to wait to see whether a police officer’s criminal case will proceed to trial before proactively publicising the charge?

If different criteria are applied to police officers, Misconduct999 has asked Northamptonshire Police to explain what those differences are and the rationale for them.

The force has been given the opportunity to clarify its position.

Misconduct999 will update this report when a further response is received.

The figures which prompted the investigation came from a Freedom of Information request submitted in February 2025 which Northamptonshire Police did not answer until September 2026 — more than 18 months later.

Misconduct999 has separately examined the force’s explanation for that delay.