Police watchdog investigators are examining whether Hertfordshire Constabulary properly handled evidence recovered from electronic devices seized during a 2015 investigation of Andrew Tate, including material alleged to contain indecent images of a child.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) confirmed that its inquiry is considering whether investigators followed local and national guidance on child sexual exploitation and potential evidence of human trafficking. The examination forms part of a wider investigation into the force’s handling of sexual offence allegations reported more than a decade ago.
What we know
According to allegations set out in court papers supporting a UK extradition request, police recovered 168 alleged indecent images or videos of a child from phones and a laptop linked to Tate after a 2015 search in Hitchin, Hertfordshire. Reporting on those documents states that 66 were classified as Category A, the most serious classification used in England and Wales.
The prosecution also alleges that material involving a girl who was 17 at the time was shared through WhatsApp. These details are allegations contained in legal documents, not facts established at a criminal trial. Tate denies wrongdoing.
In comments reported by ITV News on 27 October, the IOPC said it was examining whether the investigation of potential criminality identified on the devices met the relevant guidance concerning child sexual exploitation and evidence of human trafficking.
Why three former detectives are under investigation
The IOPC said Hertfordshire Constabulary made a voluntary conduct referral in December 2023. The watchdog is investigating a former detective constable for potential gross misconduct relating to alleged failures to investigate properly.
Two former detective sergeants who supervised the original investigation are being examined at the level of misconduct. These are investigations into possible failings, not disciplinary findings against any of the officers.
The force’s original investigation into sexual abuse allegations made by three women was closed in 2019. On 26 March 2026, Hertfordshire Constabulary confirmed that it would reinvestigate allegations reported in 2014 and 2015, following the announcement of the IOPC investigation. Sky News reported the force’s decision at the time.
What we don’t know
- Whether officers identified or classified all the alleged material in 2015, or at a later stage.
- What individual investigators knew about that material and when they knew it.
- Whether any evidence was mishandled, overlooked or subjected to an inadequate investigation.
- Whether the IOPC inquiry will result in disciplinary proceedings or findings of misconduct.
The existence of an IOPC investigation does not establish that the force deliberately ignored evidence, and there is currently no confirmed finding that any officer concealed material.
What police and prosecutors have said
The Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Major Crime Unit has said that active legal proceedings prevent it commenting further on the case. The IOPC investigation is separate from the criminal proceedings against Tate.
On 19 July 2026, the Crown Prosecution Service announced further charges against Andrew and Tristan Tate. Andrew Tate’s charges include alleged rape, trafficking-related offences and offences involving indecent images of a child and extreme pornography. Hertfordshire Constabulary said there were 59 authorised charges in total across the brothers, 42 concerning Andrew Tate and 17 concerning Tristan Tate.
Both brothers deny wrongdoing. They were arrested in Miami in July and are contesting extradition to the UK. Their lawyers have said they will challenge the charges and the grounds for extradition. The proceedings remain active and neither brother has been convicted of these charges.
The unresolved question
The central issue for the watchdog is not whether Tate is guilty of the offences alleged by prosecutors. It is whether the police response to information and evidence available during the earlier investigation met the standards required of investigators.
Until the evidence-handling timeline and the IOPC’s eventual findings are known, it would be premature to conclude why the original inquiry was closed or whether particular officers should have acted differently.
