Independent Police Complaints Commission
 Printable version
|
IPCC finds no case to answer for misconduct for a senior Greater Manchester Police Office for failing to declare a potential conflict of interest
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has concluded a senior Greater Manchester Police (GMP) officer has no case to answer for misconduct over an allegation that she failed to declare a potential conflict of interest.
The IPCC has made recommendations to GMP following the investigation to prevent any future perceptions of conflicts of interest arising.
However, the investigation was prompted by a misconduct hearing presented by the force in July 2014. The chair of the panel at the hearing was then Temporary Assistant Chief Constable (T/ACC) Rebekah Sutcliffe.
It was alleged that T/ACC Sutcliffe had not declared a potential conflict of interest, and that this should have precluded her from chairing the panel. The matter was referred to the IPCC by GMP.
The investigation found:
- Senior officers had knowledge of the matter but did not make T/ACC Sutcliffe aware that this could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest.
- There was no deliberate intention, by T/ACC Sutcliffe, to withhold the information that could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest, nor did she believe there to be a potential conflict of interest.
- All parties were informed of the panel members for the hearing and no objections were made.
As a result, the investigation concluded that the evidence found does not amount to a case to answer for misconduct for T/ACC Sutcliffe.
The IPCC has recommended that GMP consider amending current policy to ensure employees declare any potential conflicts of interest, and that a senior GMP officer should approve all panel members.
The report states that Greater Manchester Police took a ‘reasonable course of action’ in deciding T/ACC Sutcliffe should not chair any future GMP proceedings, and recommended ‘this remains the case to avoid any further cases where there may be a perceived conflict of interest’.
A spokesperson for the IPCC said: “The IPCC hopes that lessons can be learned, from this investigation, to ensure such incidences are avoided in future. It is vital that potential or perceived conflicts of interest do not delay, or threaten, the process of formal proceedings.”
