A former police inspector who was previously shielded by an anonymity order has now been publicly identified following a successful challenge by WalesOnline. Justin Ellerton, the ex-inspector of Llanelli, resigned from Dyfed-Powys Police in February after admitting gross misconduct, which involved ongoing contact with a known sex worker. His actions resulted in a misconduct hearing in March, where he was officially banned from returning to policing.
The misconduct spanned over a month, with Ellerton initiating and maintaining communication with the woman both during and outside working hours. According to details revealed at the hearing, Ellerton pursued these interactions explicitly to secure sexual services. The sequence of events culminated on 4th June last year, when, while off duty, Ellerton picked up the woman under the pretence of payment for her services. Instead, he abandoned her in the Morriston area, leaving her without payment and making off from the scene.
Initially, the presiding chair of the misconduct panel, Ian Arundale, decided to keep Ellerton’s identity and police rank concealed, arguing this would protect the wellbeing of other individuals. Arundale, a former chief constable, stated that such measures were necessary for those potentially linked to Ellerton if he were publicly named. However, after legal intervention from WalesOnline, Dyfed-Powys Police reversed this decision, upholding principles of transparency and public interest.
While Ellerton’s identity has now come to light, the approach towards officer misconduct and transparency remains inconsistent across Welsh police forces. South Wales Police continues to withhold the identity of “Officer F”, barred earlier this year for illegally accessing sensitive police databases and leaking private information to civilians. Despite Officer F’s actions representing a criminal offence that carries a significant prison sentence, he received only a caution and remains anonymous—reportedly to safeguard the wellbeing of a child with no direct connection to the crime.
Transparency campaigners, including former North Wales Police and Crime Commissioner Arfon Jones, have voiced concerns about the increasing trend of granting police officers anonymity. Jones highlights the need for accountability, questioning why misconduct proceedings don’t routinely result in open criminal trials, particularly when cases concern serious breaches of trust or even criminality. “It is in the public interest that officers who have committed serious offences are tried in public, like any other citizen. Anything else appears as a cover-up,” Jones stated.
The process for granting anonymity remains opaque. Freedom of Information requests submitted to all four Welsh forces reveal several recent instances in which officers involved in gross misconduct were granted secrecy; reasons ranged from safety concerns to ongoing criminal hearings. Some cases were based purely on requests made by accused officers themselves. The precise criteria used to make such determinations are often undisclosed, leaving the public in the dark about the justification for such decisions.
The role of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), who are intended to act as public watchdogs with oversight of police accountability, has also come under scrutiny. Emma Wools, the Labour South Wales PCC responsible for overseeing the force hiding Officer F’s identity, responded only briefly when asked to comment, calling the decision “appropriate and proportionate.” Critics argue that such responses fail to uphold the spirit of transparency and do little to reassure the public that issues of police misconduct are being handled appropriately.
Questions further remain around why certain incidents are not prosecuted. Despite Ellerton’s actions fitting the criteria of offences others have faced court for, Dyfed-Powys Police stated that he did not break the law, since “solicitation did not take place in a street or public place.” This legal technicality brings to the forefront ongoing debates about the adequacy of policing standards and the lines between misconduct and prosecutable crime.
In the rare instances when officers are struck off, their ability to move on to other fields of employment—potentially with little in their public record to warn others—raises yet more concerns about safeguarding and transparency. Unlike other regulated professions, police officers found guilty of serious breaches can too often remain undetected by future employers or the wider public once anonymity is granted.
As these cases highlight, the argument for a more open and transparent misconduct process within police forces remains a pressing issue. Trust in policing, many argue, can only be maintained if the public is confident that officers at every level are held to account—especially when they break the laws they are sworn to uphold.