Inspector Amanda Hardey of GMP lies to cover up a crime by a known suspect

On the 10th of March 2023, Bury Social Services received a malicious phone call. The phone call has (since this time) been confirmed by Detective Inspector Andy Wright of Greater Manchester Police to have originated from a known female suspect (whose name is known but not disclosed yet).

The malicious call was made intentionally to harm a victim of rape and her friend.

The Multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) report from Bury Social Services was obtained by a Subject Access Request (SAR).

Salma (not her real name) is the subject of the malicious call. She was a former client of the female suspect, who was acting as an unqualified and unregulated lawyer for her own Manchester law firm.

Salma instructed the female suspect to help with a complaint against Greater Manchester Police after she was the victim of rape, but due to failings by the suspect and her law firm (now subject to several civil actions), Salma disengaged their services.

These are the reports released by Bury Social Services. The male who the suspect makes the malicious and false allegations against is called John (not his real name)

The BLACK redaction is from Bury Social Services to comply with GDPR legislation.  We have added the RED redaction to protect the identities of the innocent parties.

And this is the email from DI Andy Wright confirming the anonymous call was from the suspect.

 

Now, you might think that is all,.. you are wrong.

Salma made her own complaint about the malicious call to GMP, which was dealt with by Detective Inspector Andy Wright. This is the officer who confirmed the caller (the suspect) to Salma after GMP traced the call to her mobile number.

John made a separate complaint about the suspect and her false and malicious call to his local police force, Lancashire police, who crimed the phone call as Malicious Communications and transferred the crime to GMP as the suspect resided in their area. 

The suspect, in her malicious call, stated that ‘having looked into his background’, John ‘has been arrested for possessing images of teenage girls being found on his phone’ and in a further call, the suspect stated John ‘has a history of indecent images of teenage girls’. 

These comments made to Bury Social Services are false, damaging and dangerous and are a communications offence under current legislation.

After persistently trying to get an update from GMP regarding his crime report and getting fobbed off, it was eventually escalated to Supt Muzemil Kernain (pictured), who spoke with the victim (John) on the phone. The call was recorded.

Supt Kernain (whose LinkedIn profile shows he has been a police officer for over 25 years) made it clear that he was calling a special meeting to plan an investigation. He tasked PC Millie Howarth to investigate the offence committed by the suspect and ensured John that PC Howarth would be in touch with him.

Over 4 weeks later, and after several emails to PC Howarth and Supt Kernain seeking an update (all were ignored), John resorted to a formal complaint to GMP.

The day after the complaint was made, PC Howarth contacted John and asked him to send the evidence. GMP already had all of the evidence and a detailed witness statement, but John complied anyway. PC Howarth asked if John was prepared to go to court to give evidence, He confirmed he would. (this call was recorded)

PC Howarth confirmed she would call John the next day to take (yet another) statement.

Within 2 hours, PC Howarth had sent an email to John telling him the crime was filed NFA. Against all the evidence, including confirmation by DI Andy Wright that the known suspect made the malicious call, PC Howarth made the bizarre decision to file it.

John has commenced an application for Judicial Review against the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police for this decision and also commenced Private Prosecution proceedings against the suspect.

 

Now, you might think that is all… you are still wrong

After John had initially been fobbed off by GMP, John had raised a formal complaint against GMP officers as they had failed to investigate all reasonable lines of enquiry.  

Now, bearing in mind that:

1. DI Andy Wright has since confirmed the call was made by the known suspect.
2. Bury Social Services has confirmed a phone number was left by the caller (and a first name of the suspect)
3. The MASH report confirms that the caller was called back for further info (showing they had a contact number)
4. That the suspect went on to make further false & malicious allegations

John received a response letter from GMP Professional Standards Department, which read:

Dear Mr xxx

Complaint Against Police

I refer to the complaint you made against Greater Manchester Police (GMP) which was recorded under the above reference number in accordance with statutory guidelines.

Following an initial assessment conducted by the Professional Standards Branch it was determined that the matter, having been recorded ,was suitable to be dealt with in a reasonable and proportionate manner, otherwise than by investigation

The overarching summary of your complaint is that GMP made an information only report that [suspects name redacted] had called Social Services to say you were a paedophile and as a result your friend had a visit from a social worker expressing concerns.

While dealing with this matter I have liaised with Social Services myself, read the incident and crime reports, spoken to the investigating officer and liaised with CID.

As a result of the report, GMP recorded two crimes under National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) for Malicious Communications and Harassment as alleged by the victim. 

These were CRI/KK/000xxxx/23 and CRI/KK/000xxxx/23.

In an ideal world, GMP would be able to fully investigate every crime reported to us, however due to the volume of reported crime and incidents and levels of officers available to undertake this, this is not feasible and therefore we assess crimes on the criteria of vulnerability, threat, harm, risk and solvability. 

An officer was allocated and after initial enquiries, the investigation was reviewed by a Detective Sergeant in CID. It was on the basis of the review that the crime was closed no further action.

Social Services have their own requirements to fact check and assess information. Although they have received an anonymous contact, it is for them to check the validity and devise a suitable course of action.  I cannot speak for them.  I have checked with Social Services and the call is confirmed anonymous. Therefore, we have no immediate lines of enquiry.

I am aware there is an ongoing issue between yourself and [suspects name redacted], and so this information has been passed to Lancashire Constabulary.

Yours sincerely

Inspector Amanda Hardey

 

This is a clear sign of corruption.  The suspect has already been named by Detective Inspector Andy Wright, yet GMP PSD state the caller was anonymous and couldn’t be traced and there are no lines of enquiry!

GMP has intentionally LIED, and this has now been reported as undeniable corruption.