Revealed: the Greater Manchester Police officers who have faced misconduct hearings since 2018

An investigation into the system for handling complaints about the police has looked at the cases of Greater Manchester officers being judged to have cases to answer for misconduct.

The BBC Shared Data Unit has analysed all of the published reports by the Independent Office for Police Complaints (IOPC) since it was formed in 2018.

It found eight Greater Manchester Police (GMP) officers had cases to answer in that time, with three being found to have committed misconduct and five being cleared.

The incidents involve allegations of racially discriminatory language being used and claims of excessive force as well as two incidents involving deaths or serious injuries shortly after contact with police officers.

Nationally, the findings have prompted critics to label the system for holding police to account “broken” and “powerless”.

What does the analysis show for Greater Manchester?

Since 2018, the IOPC has published seven reports into cases exploring allegations of misconduct at Greater Manchester Police (GMP), all of which involve officers.

In total eight officers had cases to answer for misconduct, with cases proven against three officers and the other five being cleared.

Two officers received a written warning, two were given management action and four faced no further action.

Two of the cases referred to death or serious injury having occurred shortly after contact with police.

All eight of the officers were still serving with GMP at the time.

One final written warning was given to an officer who tripped a man to get him on the floor in a custody suite. The man hit his head on the floor and subsequently lost four teeth.

The IOPC concluded CCTV footage showed there was no evidence to support the officer’s claim that the man had been a threat to him as it showed him walking unaided to a cell and then complying with a search.

The other written warning involved an officer committing gross misconduct by making racially discriminatory comments while acting as a member of the Major Investigation Team reviewing body-worn camera footage from the scene of a serious incident.

Other incidents which went before the IOPC included an officer who failed to check properly on a man who had told police his wife was acting violently and who was then admitted to hospital and died.

Another involved an officer making an inappropriate comment to the mother of a man who had rung to raise concerns about her son’s welfare. The man, who was known to have mental health problems, was found dead in his flat.

In the latter case, management action was judged to be an appropriate way of dealing with the issue.

How does the IOPC work?

The IOPC came into effect in April 2018, replacing the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) as the watchdog for policing in England and Wales.

At the time, the Home Office promised the new organisation would reform the way complaints were handled - namely by improving the speed in which conclusions were given and by allowing investigators greater autonomy.

Unlike its predecessor, the IOPC was given the power to initiate its own investigations into complaints of police conduct, without relying on a force to refer a particular case.

It could investigate chief officers and carry them out without them being managed or supervised by the constabulary under scrutiny.

The IOPC could also reopen cases it had closed where there were “compelling reasons” to do so, such as new evidence emerging.

Since its inception, the IOPC has received more than 4,000 referrals for cases in each of its three years and carried out 1,895 investigations.

Only 881 of those investigations have been published on its website so far, and it is these the BBC Shared Data Unit has analysed. 

Many of the investigations cannot be published until appeals have been heard, inquests have concluded or, in a small number of cases, criminal proceedings have concluded.

What does the investigation show nationally?

Over the past three years, some 418 misconduct cases were held by forces following an initial investigation by the IOPC.

The force panels subsequently found officers or staff to have committed misconduct or gross misconduct in 266 cases.

In misconduct cases, panels gave 18 final written warnings, 57 written warnings, took management action in 50 cases and took no further action in 12 cases.

For gross misconduct, disciplinary panels dismissed 55 police officers without notice, gave 36 final written warnings and four written warnings.

IOPC guidance introduced in 2020 states that a misconduct case should be considered a disciplinary matter that would “warrant at least a written warning”.

The BBC Shared Data Unit’s analysis of published cases where the IOPC found there was a misconduct case to answer showed 244 officers put in that position, with 105 facing no further action, 87 being subject to management action, 40 receiving a written warning and 10 being dismissed.

What has been said about the data?

IOPC director of strategy and impact Kathie Cashell said: “Out of 107 cases that went to disciplinary proceedings last year following an IOPC independent investigation, the case was found proven for almost 80 per cent of them.

“This is a clear sign that our investigations ensure officers are held accountable for their actions.”

She also said that in almost half the cases when misconduct was not proven officers still faced some other kind of action to improve their performance.

And she added that no two cases are the same and the organisation can come to different conclusions to disciplinary panels because different legal thresholds apply.

The Police Federation said the reason the most serious punishments were rare was because the IOPC too often pursued “vexatious allegations” against its members.

Critics, though, say the system remains “broken” and “powerless” with little political will to change it.

The Home Affairs Select Committee launched a new inquiry into the effectiveness of the IOPC at the start of 2021.

Deborah Coles, executive director of charity Inquest which provides expertise on state-related deaths and their investigation, told the committee that sanctions against police officers were too rare and the lack of punishment risked undermining confidence in policing.

Critics say the IOPC, like its predecessor, still has too many former police officers among its staff to claim it is truly independent.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) declined to comment on the analysis of the force’s reports.

More reaction to the national picture

IOPC Director of Strategy and Impact Kathie Cashell said: “Out of 107 cases that went to disciplinary proceedings last year following an IOPC independent investigation, the case was found proven for almost 80 per cent of them. This is a clear sign that our investigations ensure officers are held accountable for their actions.

“In addition, of the individuals we determined did not have a case to answer for misconduct, almost half faced some other form of action to improve their conduct or performance.

“How officers are dealt with will depend on the facts of the individual case, no two cases are the same, and it is ultimately for those in charge of disciplinary proceedings to determine the appropriate sanction based on the information presented to them.

“While we respect the remit of disciplinary panels, we do not necessarily always agree with their conclusions. The IOPC and disciplinary panels will not always reach the same conclusion on analysis of what is sometimes a complex set of evidence and where different legal thresholds apply.

“Given the impact on public confidence, we have previously told the Home Secretary we would welcome a review of whether decision-making by police misconduct panels is suitably consistent, and in line with the College of Policing’s guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings.

“We would also like to see those decisions and the rationale for them, are adequately transparent and being communicated effectively to the public.”

 The Police Federation’scNational vice Chair Ché Donald said: “A ‘no further action’ outcome for proven misconduct may demonstrate the case was not serious enough to require a written warning.

 “Although labelled as misconduct, it could be a low-level mistake; for example, forgetting to fill out a form due to the demands of the job. In these cases, officers should go through the reflective practice process with their managers to learn from their mistakes and not be punished.

 “It is difficult to comment on these individual cases without seeing the full details, however, under the new regulations, forces may have incorrectly assessed the severity and the independent panel decided it was more appropriate to throw the case out, or give a written warning.

 “A written warning is still an 18-month stain on an officer’s record which can lead to their dismissal if the behaviours are not rectified or continue, a serious outcome for an officer.

 “A final written warning is a two-year mark on an officer’s record – possibly extendable in some circumstances- but both are where a panel containing an independent legally qualified chairperson, and a lay member, have heard all the evidence and circumstances before deciding the officer is still of value to the service and does not need to be dismissed to satisfy any public concerns.

 “It may also be due to issues with the timeliness of investigations, with low-level misconduct cases becoming more and more irrelevant for each month they drag on for.”