A police misconduct panel has come under fire after refusing to reveal the identity of a convicted criminal who received confidential police intelligence from his girlfriend — a serving officer at the time — on the grounds that naming him could “affect his welfare." Maryam Ilyas, 20, was exposed for abusing her access to West Yorkshire Police systems to secretly pass sensitive information to her boyfriend, a known drug dealer.

While Ilyas faced public scrutiny during this week’s disciplinary hearing, the man she supplied information to was granted full anonymity. Despite appeals from attending journalists, who argued that identifying individuals connected to misconduct cases is essential for public trust, the panel ruled there was “no public interest” in disclosing his name. Panel chair Catherine Hankinson — formerly the deputy chief constable of West Yorkshire Police — insisted that revealing the man’s identity could harm his welfare, referring to him only as “Mr J.”

Hankinson said: “Although there is significant public interest in these proceedings, there is no public interest in naming a member of the public who is not the subject of the hearing. It is not alleged that Mr J actively contributed to former PC Ilyas’s misconduct, and identifying him does not advance the purpose of these proceedings. His behaviour is already outlined in the public notice and can be reported without naming him. As there is no public interest in identifying Mr J, the potential negative impact on his welfare justifies a reporting restriction.”

The decision is expected to intensify ongoing criticism surrounding secrecy in police disciplinary processes, with campaigners raising fresh concerns over transparency and accountability. West Yorkshire Police defended the ruling, noting that legislation allows anonymity where necessary to protect the safety or welfare of witnesses, informants, or others involved indirectly. However, Home Office guidance also emphasises that transparency should be the default position.

A force spokesperson said: “The panel concluded that naming a member of the public who is not the subject of the proceedings does not serve the purpose of misconduct hearings. Ultimately it was determined that identification was unnecessary.”

Ilyas’s misconduct came to light after officers arrested “Mr J” in July on drug-dealing charges. A search of his phone revealed extensive communication between the pair, including images of cash and drug-related messages. Evidence presented at the hearing showed Ilyas had accessed restricted police databases on three occasions and shared details of a covert policing operation.

When first confronted by anti-corruption investigators, Ilyas denied any wrongdoing, falsely claiming she had ended the relationship and had no knowledge of her partner’s criminal involvement. She later admitted the allegations, including failing to disclose the relationship during vetting when she joined the force in June 2024.

Having resigned before the hearing, Ilyas would have been dismissed for gross misconduct had she still been employed. Hankinson said her behaviour “undermined public confidence in policing,” adding:

“The public rightly expect officers to act with honesty and integrity. The overwhelming majority of West Yorkshire officers uphold these standards. The conduct of this former officer fell far below what is expected and damages the trust that colleagues work hard to build every day.”

When approached for comment after the hearing, Ilyas denied the allegations and claimed the force had “destroyed my future,” insisting she was inexperienced and still fresh out of training school. She declined to name her former boyfriend, saying she did not want to “bring anyone else into this.”

Detective Chief Superintendent Tanya Wilkins of the Professional Standards Directorate condemned Ilyas’s actions:

“Officers are required to declare personal connections with criminals. This officer ignored that duty. She accessed and shared police data inappropriately and then lied about it. Her behaviour discredits the police service and undermines public confidence. She will now be added to the College of Policing’s Barred List, preventing future employment in policing.”

According to evidence heard by the panel, Ilyas had passed on sensitive intelligence, including images of an active police operation, and searched information relating to her boyfriend, his family, and his criminal associates.