The married constable, who was previously stationed in Norwich, appeared before a misconduct hearing this week where he was dismissed from the force.

In such cases, the press are usually permitted to name the officers involved.

But on this occasion, Assistant Chief Constable Nicholas Davison, who oversaw the hearing, banned reporting of his name during the case and at the end imposed an order that will conceal his identity indefinitely.

Norfolk assistant chief constable Nick Davison placed restriction on naming the officer (Image: Norfolk Constabulary)

The senior officer said he had made the decision because of concerns for the constable's mental health.

But the EDP has challenged the reporting restrictions arguing it is against the principle of open justice, sets an alarming precedent and diminishes trust in the police as it could lead the public to conclude the force is a law unto itself.

The hearing was told the officer - who we can name only as PC Y - visited Norfolk massage parlours on three occasions while off duty.

This was despite him having previously received a warning about his behaviour from a senior officer after his wife found phone messages he had been exchanging with escorts. He referred himself to the force over the messages, but not over the later visits to massage parlours.

PC Y said he had initially sought a Thai massage at one parlour to help with injuries rather than seeking sex, but when it was offered he had "accepted rather than leaving".

The officer identified as PC Y admitted paying for sex at Thai massage parlours (Image: Facebook)

He later returned to a different massage parlour on two occasions in January and February 2025 where he paid for sexual acts.

National policing guidelines state that officers should not visit brothels to obtain sexual services as it risks impartiality and increases the risk of officers being blackmailed or exploited by organised criminals.

The misconduct hearing was told PC Y had previously been “forewarned in the clearest possible terms” by a senior officer after his wife discovered the earlier messages exchanged with escorts.

Jonathan Landau, a barrister representing Norfolk Constabulary, told the hearing: “There can be no doubt the officer was aware of the regulations and the incompatibility of the use of sex workers with the role of a police officer.”

Mr Landau said officers had a “duty to safeguard and protect sex workers who are vulnerable to abuse and trafficking”.

The officer admitted paying sex workers amounted to gross misconduct (Image: Newsquest)

When asked about the vulnerability of the women he paid for sex, the officer had only referred to their appearance and the cleanliness of the premises.

“He knew nothing about the women, their circumstances or welfare,” Mr Landau added.

“It's obvious officers are meant to be helping sex workers, not using them for sexual gratification and exploiting their vulnerabilities.”

The officer, who has been a Norfolk PC since 2015, was not suspended when his actions came to light but was placed on restricted non-public facing duties.

Barrister Colin Banham, representing the constable, said: “This isn't a case where the officer has sought to deny it.”

He said the officer was “very remorseful” and that a medical background that had led to a personal crisis “greatly mitigated” his behaviour.

“This is quite a downtrodden individual given what he has done, the situation he finds himself in and his life in general,” he said.

PC Y had sought to remain a police officer but was dismissed without notice (Image: Facebook)

The disciplinary panel was told colleagues had described him as well liked, popular, and a “solid investigator” who was trusted and considerate.

Arguing he should receive a final written warning rather than being sacked, Mr Banham added: “Because of what was going on at the time, the proportionate outcome would be to retain the officer.”

But Mr Davison ruled he should be dismissed without notice after finding his actions had been “highly damaging to public confidence”.

Officers who undergo disciplinary hearings are routinely named with College of Policing’s guidance suggesting they should always be unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Anonymity can be granted to officers in specific circumstances, such as undercover work, or high-level armed policing or if there is a risk to safety.

Decisions to not identify officers are made by the hearing chairman, sometimes leading to officers being given anonyms like "Officer A" or similar, following submissions from both sides.

The misconduct hearing took place at the offices of the police commissioner in Wymondham (Image: Google)

EDP letter to Norfolk assistant chief constable Nick Davison requesting the lifting of restrictions on naming the officer (Image: Newsquest)

In the case of ‘PC Y’ assistant chief constable Nick Davison, who chaired the accelerated disciplinary panel, granted a reporting restriction which banned identification.

He made the decision citing the Equalities Act and Home Office guidance on police conduct regulations, specifically the “physical and mental health welfare of the officer subject to the misconduct hearing”.

Despite calls for higher transparency, especially in cases of sexual misconduct, the use of anonymity for police officers has been criticised by lawyers and victims' families, who argue that it affords a "special status" and compromises public scrutiny.

© Norwich Evening News