The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) has secured a second victory for open justice in three weeks after challenging an order by Avon & Somerset Police's top officer to hold a misconduct hearing in private.

Former DC Scott Burton's case was due to be heard behind closed doors after Chief Constable Sarah Crew initially ruled that this was the only way to protect the identity and welfare of his child victim, who received sexual messages from the ex-detective, and her family.

But the LDRS successfully argued that it was the duty and responsibility of the media, not the chief of police, to decide how hearings like this should be reported to the public in a sensitive manner while ensuring the youngster is not identified.

It comes after we persuaded Chief Constable Crew last month to lift an anonymity order on another discreditable cop, PC Kevin Curd.

We submitted that this was an affront to transparency and that cloaking a police officer's identity protected them unreasonably from public scrutiny, even though he committed wrongdoing so serious that he was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct.

Although Chief Constable Crew lifted the reporting restrictions and we named PC Curd, the hearing had already taken place in private and very few details were released.

This time, though, while ex-DC Burton was named ahead of the hearing Chief Constable Crew had still seen fit to shut out the press and public.

So we appealed to the top officer to reverse her decision and hold it in public, and she agreed.

At the hearing on Monday, December 5, the chief constable was asked by the former detective's representative for the circumstances of the case not to be read out in public.

But she said: "There are reasons these hearings are held in public.

"It is important for open justice that we bring as much into the public domain as we can without putting at risk the identity of the victim in this case.

"It would be helpful for me and for open justice if we were to go through the circumstances of the case."

Her reasons for originally deciding to hear it in private were "to protect the identity and welfare of the victim and the victim's family in this matter".

We argued that the issue of identity was straightforward – under the Sexual Offences Act there is automatic lifetime anonymity for any victim of a sexual offence, therefore the media is already prohibited from naming them, and in any case this is something we would not wish to do.

Any report would be written in a way that would not identify the victim, for the simple reason that it cannot.

Furthermore, media industry watchdog IPSO Editors' Code of Practice also quite rightfully includes additional clauses concerning the protection of children in press reports, and we abide strictly by this code.

On the issue of holding the hearing in private in order to protect the welfare of the victim and her family, we submitted that this was also clear cut.

Any trained and experienced journalist is accustomed to writing such a report sensitively when it involves sexual allegations relating to a child.

Our interest was in ensuring the misconduct hearing of the officer, who accepted responsibility for the offence for which he had already been given a police caution – a criminal record – and placed on the Sexual Offenders' Register, was reported to the public in a free and fair manner.

If the same rules of privacy were applied to criminal proceedings, no cases involving sexual offences against children would be held in public, which is clearly absurd and contrary to the long-established principle of open justice, transparency and press freedom.

It would be nonsensical to set the privacy bar higher for police misconduct hearings than for criminal court cases, particularly when the chief constable makes the decision to hold a hearing in private in relation to an officer who, until recently, was under her command.

It would perpetuate the perception – which we trust is incorrect – that the police service seeks to close ranks, sweep bad news under the carpet and refuse to allow necessary public scrutiny of how it deals with discreditable officers.

The underlying principle is that not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done.

As a result of our application, Chief Constable Crew, having sought further legal advice, reversed her decision, and we have reported ex-DC Burton's misconduct hearing.