Neil Wilby Media

Chief Constable Stephen Watson (pictured above) frequently claims how much Greater Manchester Police has improved as a force under his leadership. The statistics on crime figures and arrests, together with watchdog inspection reports by His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, tend to support the chief’s viewpoint.

But, sometimes, it is a case of two steps forward and one step backwards; CC Watson, as part of taking his force forward, has also been very active – and vociferous – in cleaning out his stable and ridding his ranks of unsuitable, corrupt or criminally-minded officers. 

The latest to face an Accelerated Misconduct Hearing is PC 15771 Matthew Scarratt, who will answer allegations later today (16th February, 2024) that his conduct amounts to breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour for Authority, respect and courtesy; Discreditable Conduct; Duties and Responsibilities; and Honesty and Integrity contrary to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 following contact with a vulnerable person.

Those last six words must stand as the shortest ever narrative covering Professional Standards breaches ahead of a disciplinary hearing. The length of hearing – a single afternoon – strongly suggests that it is a foregone conclusion and PC Scarratt will not be defending the allegations.

Even accepting the victim’s vulnerable status, and an associated need for sensitive treatment and confidentiality, there is an information vacuum that seriously undermines public confidence in these types of police proceedings. Unanswered questions that immediately spring to mind are:

 – When did the incident(s) take place?

 – How was the alleged offending discovered?

 – Has there been a significant lapse of time before bringing these proceedings?

 – Was there a suspicion of criminal offences and were these investigated?

 – If not, when did the internal investigation commence and conclude?

 – Was PC Sherratt suspended when the alleged offending was discovered?

 – Does he remain suspended?

 – In what district or unit did he work?

 – Who is the Legally Qualified Chair who will preside over the hearing?

 – Who are the other two Panel members?

It is possible that after a lapse of time, when the Misconduct Outcome is ultimately published on the GMP website, some or all of these questions will be answered.

But, by then, will it be too late for other members of the public – or even some of PC Sharratt’s colleagues – to come forward with information that might have assisted the investigation and impacted upon the disciplinary (or criminal) proceedings?

Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook (here) for signposts to any updates.

Page last updated: Friday 16th February, 2024 at 0835 hours

Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Picture credit: GMP

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2024. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.