A civilian custody detention officer working for Greater Manchester Police has been dismissed without notice after sending unsolicited sexualised photographs, videos and inappropriate messages to a woman he encountered while on duty at Bolton Police Station.
The unnamed officer, who cannot be identified because civilian police staff are dealt with under a disciplinary regime that is not held in public, was found guilty of gross misconduct at a one-day hearing on Friday 29 May 2026. He has been placed on the College of Policing’s barred list, meaning he cannot work in any policing role again.
In May 2024, the woman attended the custody suite at Bolton Police Station to fulfil the role of appropriate adult, a function that exists to ensure the interests of children are protected when they are detained by police. In the weeks that followed her visit, the custody detention officer began sending her unsolicited messages of a sexual nature.
An ‘independent‘ investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which followed a formal referral from Greater Manchester Police received on 13 July 2024, found that the officer had sent the woman pictures of himself in uniform while on duty and an image of his penis. In interview, he admitted to investigators that he had exchanged phone numbers with the woman and that the messages had become, in his own words, “a bit sexual“.
The hearing found the officer had breached police standards of professional behaviour across four categories: honesty and integrity; authority, respect and courtesy; adherence to instructions; and discreditable conduct. He was dismissed without notice.
The IOPC referred a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, which decided not to charge him with any criminal offence. Investigators also found no evidence to support a number of further allegations, including that he had used police systems to obtain the woman’s contact details, or that he had touched her inappropriately during her visit.
The case highlights a significant disparity in how misconduct proceedings are handled depending on employment status. Police officers accused of gross misconduct are ordinarily named at public disciplinary hearings. Civilian staff, however, fall under a separate regime that carries no equivalent public transparency requirement. As a result, the officer’s identity has not been disclosed by the IOPC or by GMP.
IOPC Director Amanda Rowe said the officer’s conduct represented an abuse of his position and posed a serious risk to public confidence in policing.
“His contact with a woman he met while on duty was entirely inappropriate and such behaviour has no place in policing,” she said.
“It is vital that those who experience or witness inappropriate behaviour by police officers feel confident to report it and this case should send a clear message that those concerns will be taken seriously by the IOPC and by police forces.”
The woman made multiple attempts to report the officer’s behaviour before the matter was formally referred to the IOPC. Holding the staff member accountable was not straightforward, and required persistence on her part before the watchdog became involved. The outcome, while appropriate, took over a year from the original incident to reach a conclusion, causing more distress to the complainant.
Be the first to comment