PC Millie Howarth of Greater Manchester now accused of perverting the course of justice

This is an update of a previous article on this website (read it here)

In a recent development from the prior report on this platform, an incident involving PC Millie Howarth of the Greater Manchester Police has gained further attention. On 9th July 2023, PC Howarth informed a crime victim that their report to the police did not constitute an offence under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

Subsequent events unfolded when the suspect of these Malicious Communications appeared before a Circuit Judge at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre.

The suspect was presented with an email from PC Howarth, confirming her (the suspect’s) involvement in the crime.

This revelation came as a surprise, especially since the suspect had previously denied making the phone call to the Judge, leading to significant repercussions. The judge, upon learning of the deceit (and other misconduct), imposed a £3,700 penalty against the suspect for wasted costs.

Following this courtroom admission, Greater Manchester Police have been compelled to revisit the case initially dismissed by PC Howarth as non-criminal.

Inspector Iain Carr of the Lancashire police has since communicated to the victim that PC Howarth’s assessment was flawed in his opinion.

The information passed to you by PC 5866 Howarth was, in my opinion, incorrect

Inspector Carr has advocated for a re-examination of the case by the Greater Manchester Police, highlighting new evidence that the suspect had confessed to the act—a detail already known to the police.

GMP should reopen their investigation given this potential new evidence


On 9th July 2023, PC 5866 Millie Howarth of Greater Manchester Police was the officer who notified the victim of a crime that the crime he had reported was not a crime under s1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

Since this time, the female suspect of the sickening malicious communications faced a Circuit Judge in the Manchester Civil Justice Centre, and, to her shock, was shown an email from PC Howarth which confirmed she made the call. The Judge was made aware that the same female had lied about making the phone call in a previous hearing, infuriating the Judge, who heavily sanctioned the female for her conduct with a cost order of £3,700.

Now, since the admission in court, Greater Manchester Police have had to re-open the investigation that PC Millie Howarth determined in her wisdom was not a crime.

Inspector Iain Carr of Lancashire police has told the victim

The information passed to you by PC 5866 Howarth was, in my opinion, incorrect

going on to say

GMP should reopen their investigation given this potential new evidence

The case complexity deepened with the suspect’s admission and subsequent falsfieid justifications for her actions, which were not only verifiably false but also now invoke potential contempt of court proceedings.

Allegations have surfaced implicating Superintendent Muzemil Kernain in the mishandling of the investigation.

It’s speculated that Superintendent Kernain, who has since removed his profile picture from LinkedIn (since our previous article), may have directed PC Howarth’s initial investigation efforts.

This direction (or lack thereof) has led to accusations against PC Howarth of attempting to pervert the course of justice, given the clear and deliberate nature of the malicious communication and its intended impact on the victims and PC Howarth’s dismissal of an offence worthy of investigation.

This series of events raises serious questions about the conduct and decision-making within the Greater Manchester Police, particularly in how cases of malicious communication are evaluated and pursued and their apparant protection of certain suspect.




Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.