A police misconduct panel refused to name a convicted criminal who was fed confidential inside information by his PC girlfriend – claiming that identifying him would ‘affect his welfare’.
Corrupt Maryam Ilyas, 20, trawled force systems at West Yorkshire Police to secretly pass on intelligence to her drug-dealing boyfriend.
The disgraced PC handed over sensitive details including pictures of an active police operation and looked up the crook, his family and criminal associates.
Yet while Ilyas was publicly shamed at a police misconduct hearing this week, her criminal partner was granted anonymity.
Despite an appeal from members of the press – who argued that transparency was essential to maintain public confidence in policing – a disciplinary panel ruled there was ‘no public interest’ in doing so.
Panel chair Catherine Hankinson, a former West Yorkshire deputy chief constable, claimed his ‘welfare would be negatively affected’ if the criminal was named – referring to him solely as the mysterious ‘Mr J’.
She said in her ruling: ‘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;
“It is not alleged that Mr J has actively contributed to former PC Ilyas’s misconduct, and naming him does not further the purposes of these proceedings;
Corrupt Maryam Ilyas (pictured), 20, trawled force systems at West Yorkshire Police to secretly pass on intelligence to her drug-dealing boyfriend
‘Mr J’s criminal behaviour is set out in the allegations and public notice and can be reported without naming him;
‘It is likely that Mr J’s welfare will be negatively affected if he is named in media reporting of this case;
‘As there is no public interest in the naming of Mr J, the likely adverse effect on his welfare is sufficient to make it appropriate in the circumstances to make a reporting restriction.’
The decision will likely fuel anger over secrecy in police disciplinary cases and raise fresh questions about accountability.
West Yorkshire Police said the decision was in line with legislation, which states that anonymity can be granted when deemed ‘necessary and proportionate for the protection of the welfare and safety of any informant or witness’ or ‘otherwise in the public interest’.
Home Office guidance also states, however, that ‘the presumption should be of transparency where possible’.
A force spokesperson said: ‘The decision was made following consideration of Home Office guidance, with the panel concluding that there is no public interest in naming a member of the public who is not the subject of the proceedings.
‘Ultimately it was considered that naming him does not further the purposes of the misconduct proceedings.’
Leeds-based Ilyas was caught when officers arrested ‘Mr J’ for dealing drugs in July this year.
West Yorkshire Police headquarters where Ilyas was a trainee police officer
Searches of his phone uncovered messages which revealed the extent of the couple’s relationship.
Pictures of wads of cash and messages discussing drugs were sent between the pair, the hearing was told.
Ilyas was also found to have disclosed confidential information about a plain-clothes police operation and scoured restricted computer systems three times.
She then lied about the relationship when confronted by anti-corruption colleagues, claimed she had separated from him and was ‘unaware of his criminal history’.
Ilyas later admitted the allegations, including failing to declare the relationship on her vetting form when she joined the police in June 2024.
Ilyas resigned ahead of the disciplinary hearing and would have been sacked for gross misconduct had she remained in the job.
She has now been barred from policing.
Former DDC Hankinson said the rogue PC had ‘undermined public confidence in policing’.
She said: ‘The public rightly expect police officers to act with honesty and integrity in the discharge of their duties.
‘The vast majority of officers in West Yorkshire Police do uphold those high standards that are expected of them by the public and by their chief officers.
‘The conduct of the former officer falls significantly below those high standards and does a disservice to the public and to her colleagues who work so hard to build relationships and confidence with the public on a daily basis.”
When approached Ilyas denied wrongdoing, claiming the force had ‘destroyed my future’.
She claimed: ‘I was a student officer. I literally came out of training school at the end of last year.
‘I was really new to all this and I feel like I was expected to know everything straight away.’
Ilyas was not present or represented at the hearing in Wakefield, West Yorks.
She last night refused to name her criminal now-ex boyfriend, saying: ‘I don’t want anyone else to be brought into this’.
Detective Chief Superintendent Tanya Wilkins, of West Yorkshire Police’s Professional Standards Directorate, said: ‘We make it very clear to all police officers, staff and volunteers that they must declare any personal contact with notifiable associations including criminals.
‘This officer blatantly ignored that order. She also accessed and shared police data inappropriately and then breached the standards of honesty and integrity by lying about it.
‘This kind of behaviour discredits the police service and undermines public confidence in it.
‘A panel has now determined that her actions amount to gross misconduct, and this officer would have been dismissed had she not already resigned.
‘She will be added to the College of Policing’s Barred List preventing her from gaining further employment in policing nationally.’
