What did the IOPC find regarding Greater Manchester Police?

The IOPC found that GMP's handling of complaints about a custody officer's alleged misconduct was unacceptable.

How long did the complainant wait for action on her GMP complaint?

The complainant waited two-and-a-half years for her complaint to be acted upon by GMP.

What actions were taken against the GMP custody officer?

The GMP custody officer was arrested and suspended, and a criminal investigation is ongoing.

Home / Crime and Justice / Watchdog Slams GMP's Handling of Cyber-Flashing Claims

Watchdog Slams GMP's Handling of Cyber-Flashing Claims

16 Jan

•

Summary

Complaints about a custody officer's alleged misconduct were not adequately addressed.
A victim faced a two-and-a-half-year wait for her complaint to be acted upon.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) found GMP's complaint handling unacceptable.

Watchdog Slams GMP's Handling of Cyber-Flashing Claims

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has concluded that Greater Manchester Police (GMP) failed to handle complaints regarding a custody officer's alleged cyber-flashing and sexual touching in an "acceptable" manner. Initially, the complainant received no response from GMP following an incident in Bolton in May 2024. Action was only initiated after she escalated her concerns to Cheshire Police, leading to the GMP custody officer's arrest and suspension.