Police Corruption Scandal Sees Criminal Granted Anonymity
A police misconduct panel has sparked controversy by refusing to identify a convicted criminal who received confidential police information from his girlfriend, a serving officer. The panel claimed that naming the drug dealer would negatively affect his welfare, despite appeals from journalists arguing that transparency was essential for public confidence in policing.
The Corrupt Officer and Her Secret Information Leaks
Maryam Ilyas, a 20-year-old trainee police constable with West Yorkshire Police, systematically accessed force systems to secretly pass intelligence to her drug-dealing boyfriend. The disgraced officer, who joined the police in June 2024, handed over sensitive details including photographs of an active police operation and conducted multiple searches concerning the criminal, his family and associates.
The corruption came to light in July this year when officers arrested her boyfriend, referred to only as 'Mr J', for drug dealing offences. Examination of his mobile phone uncovered messages revealing the extent of their relationship, including photographs of cash bundles and discussions about drugs.
Ilyas was found to have disclosed confidential information about a plain-clothes police operation and accessed restricted computer systems on three separate occasions. When confronted by anti-corruption colleagues, she lied about the relationship, falsely claiming she had ended it and was unaware of his criminal history.
Controversial Anonymity Ruling Sparks Transparency Concerns
While Ilyas was publicly named and shamed at the police misconduct hearing in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, her criminal partner was granted anonymity. Panel chair Catherine Hankinson, a former West Yorkshire deputy chief constable, ruled there was 'no public interest' in identifying him, referring to him solely as 'Mr J' throughout proceedings.
In her ruling, Hankinson stated: 'Whilst there is considerable public interest in these proceedings and in the transparency of the proceedings, there is no public interest in naming a member of the public who is not the subject of the proceedings.' She added that Mr J's 'welfare would be negatively affected' if identified in media reporting.
The decision has raised serious questions about police accountability and comes despite Home Office guidance stating that 'the presumption should be of transparency where possible'. West Yorkshire Police defended the ruling, stating it was 'in line with legislation' that permits anonymity when deemed 'necessary and proportionate'.
Consequences and Fallout from the Scandal
Ilyas admitted all allegations against her, including failing to declare the relationship on her vetting form when joining the police. She resigned ahead of the disciplinary hearing and would have been dismissed for gross misconduct had she remained in her position. She has now been added to the College of Policing's Barred List, preventing any future employment in policing nationally.
Former DCC Hankinson stated that the rogue officer had 'undermined public confidence in policing', noting that 'the public rightly expect police officers to act with honesty and integrity'. Detective Chief Superintendent Tanya Wilkins of West Yorkshire Police's Professional Standards Directorate emphasised that all officers must declare contacts with criminals, stating Ilyas had 'blatantly ignored that order'.
When approached, Ilyas claimed the force had 'destroyed my future', arguing she was 'really new to all this' as a student officer. She refused to name her now-ex boyfriend, stating: 'I don't want anyone else to be brought into this'. The case continues to fuel debates about secrecy in police disciplinary processes and the balance between individual welfare and public transparency.
