A ROAD traffic police officer who took a coctail of illegal drugs has been dismissed from the Met Police without being identified, Essex News and Investigations can reveal.
The anonymous Met Police PC had a misconduct hearing in private last month, but all trace of his name was removed from a public notice about the decision placed on the force website.
A force professional misconduct panel heard the male officer submitted a urine sample for drugs testing on August 30 2019.
A decision norice published about the case said: "The urine sample provided by the officer for a with-cause drug test was found to contain amphetamine, methamphetamine and cannabis, indicating that he had been consuming and misusing controlled drugs, contrary to the MPS Substance Misuse Policy."
It said that this was proved as misconduct and the officer was dismissed without notice.
The Met Police holds several misconduct hearings each year covering a variety of misconduct offences and details of the officer's name and rank and the allegations are published on its website in advance of the hearing.
The outcome, which also includes the officer's name, is also published for 28 days on the website before being removed.
However, in this case the name was withheld before and after the hearing.
All that was published was that the officer was based at the Road Traffic Policing Command.
The Met was asked why the case had been dealt with anonymously and took ten days to reply, offering no real explanation.
A spokeswoman said: "This relates to sensitive aspects of the officer’s personal life which have been protected from wider public knowledge.
"If you wish to check whether the Met has a duty to release this info, feel free to submit an FOI. But I think under the legislation this could/would also be restricted."
Essex News and Investigations Opinion
This is a poor show of transparency from the Met. The explanation makes no sense, as most in most previous cases the officer has been named, and much more embarrasing misdemeaners have come to light such as sexual abuse, drink driving, thefts, domestic violence and racist behaviour.
The Met website says of its misconduct hearings: "The purpose of a public hearing is to show that our disciplinary system is open and transparent.
"It will demonstrate that we do hold officers who breach the standards of professional behaviour, or those where misconduct is found proven, accountable for their actions."
That is clearly not the case here and it seems unlikley it was done to spare the PC's blushes otherwise none of them would be named.
We have asked for more detail under what guidelines it was kept secret, if the officer asked for anonymity, and who the decision maker was.