I am a sexual violence and police reform campaigner. My journey began in February 2021 when I was the victim of serious sexual assault. The perpetrators are serving Greater Manchester Police (GMP) officers. I made a subject access request (SAR) the same month asking for the ‘evidential footage’ which has been withheld by the force. A total of 4.5 hours have conveniently ‘vanished’. Read more about my story by following the links:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13563129/Woman-drugged-raped-custody-GMP-mystery-CCTV.html
I am not an isolated case. Jackie Berkeley was the historical 1984 cell rape case.
One of the four alleged perpetrators is still serving. How do I know? GMP assigned him as the officer to investigate my case, in May 2022. In my opinion this was a calculative move as it would have influenced the investigation, with a clear bias towards the officers being investigated. Yes, GMP assigned an alleged sex offender to investigate alleged sex offenders.
Another one of the four co-accused is currently serving at the ICO. Is this why the ICO alleged that the 4.5 hours worth of ‘evidential footage’ was exempt from disclosure because GMP had applied exemptions in June 2022? This is the same 4.5 hours of ‘evidential footage’ that is now missing, conveniently.
It is evidenced that the footage existed and was reviewed. This footage then became exempt from disclosure. Then, the footage allegedly became ‘corrupt’ . The very latest rationale from the IOPC is that it never existed. I submitted another SAR in July 2024, this time asking for the digital forensics also referred to as the digital footprint, metadata and proof for the various server issues claimed. GMP have failed to provide me with any evidence. Simplified, the ‘evidential footage’ that could prove or negate sexual misconduct exists and GMP are deliberately concealing the evidence.
What are the chances of Jackie and I being isolated cases?
My experience led to a Public Review into GMP’s mistreatment of women and girls. The Report was published in 2024. As I predicted it resulted in not a single officer being held to account in my case or in the cases of others that came forward. It was misleading in that it stated I removed myself from the process. The truth is, I was removed for raising concerns about the Review Lead who was far from impartial.
The aim now as an aspiring journalist is to amplify my voice by telling my story my way, as well as that of other survivors like Jackie and I. I had to fight against a police complaints system that is not only, not fit for purpose but also corrupt to the core. The silencing and discrediting attempts have been relentless. I went public with my experience as a last resort. The cover up continues. What started as an organisational cover up has now become a systematic one. I am still fighting for accountability despite waiving my right to anonymity. Follow me and my journey as I fight back and help others along the way.
Zayna Iman 