GMP Officer Sentenced for Helping Organised Crime 2026

Key Points

• Former GMP officer Tubah Hamid has been handed a sentence of three years’ imprisonment for three counts of misconduct in public office.
• She received an additional four-month sentence for computer misuse and four months for unlawful prison communication, which will all run concurrently with her three-year sentence.
• Hamid was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court on 9 July 2026.
• The former officer developed a romantic relationship with someone from an organised crime group dealing in Class A drugs.
• It was established that she passed on confidential police intelligence in order to ensure that he remained under the radar and out of surveillance.
• Police computer records revealed that she searched for information regarding four individuals for no clear reason related to policing.
• Two of the individuals had been contacted by Hamid not long after her searches.
• The investigation was led by the Independent Office for Police Conduct and carried out by GMP’s Anti-Corruption Unit.
• Director of Engagement at the IOPC Amanda Rowe described Hamid’s actions as “audacious, corrupt and criminal”.

Manchester Police (Manchester Mirror) September 2026 – GMP officer Tubah Hamid has been jailed for corruption offences after an investigation found that she used her position to support a man connected to an organised crime group.

Former GMP officer Tubah Hamid was sentenced in Liverpool on 16 September 2026 after being convicted of sharing confidential policing information with a member of an organised crime group, accessing police systems without a legitimate purpose and transmitting communications from a prison.

According to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), Hamid was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for three charges of misconduct in public office. She was also sentenced to four months for four computer misuse offences and a further four months for unlawfully causing the transmission of an image or sound from within a prison using electronic communications.

The two four-month sentences will run concurrently with the three-year sentence. The overall sentence is therefore three years in prison.

Hamid was found guilty at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday 9 July 2026. She had previously appeared at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court in June 2025 to face the charges.

The case followed a directed investigation by the IOPC, carried out by the Greater Manchester Police Anti-Corruption Unit under the direction and control of the IOPC Anti-Corruption Unit.

What information did Hamid share?

The IOPC said evidence showed that Hamid shared confidential intelligence between December 2021 and June 2022 without lawful justification.

The court heard that she was in a relationship with a member of a criminal network involved in supplying Class A drugs. Investigators concluded that Hamid assisted him by providing information that could help him avoid police detection or surveillance.

The information related to confidential policing activity. The IOPC said the disclosure of such information represented a serious misuse of her position as a police officer.

The investigation also uncovered messages between Hamid and the man on 25 April 2022. According to the evidence presented to the court, the man was concerned that he was being watched by police.

Hamid then helped him understand how he might check whether he was under surveillance. This included advice connected with changing his routes.

The information was not provided for a legitimate policing purpose, according to the findings reported by the IOPC. Instead, it was used to assist a person linked to criminal activity.

What happened during the police investigation?

Investigators observed Hamid on 16 June 2022 getting into a vehicle with the man connected to the criminal network.

The IOPC said Hamid had reported to the force that she was off sick and unable to work. Later that day, the vehicle stopped and another man approached it.

Officers subsequently recovered cocaine from the individual who had approached the vehicle. The IOPC said Hamid’s presence during the incident provided further evidence that she knew the man she was with was involved in criminality.

The observation formed part of the wider evidence gathered during the investigation. It was considered alongside the messages, police computer records and information-sharing allegations.

The case did not rely only on Hamid’s personal relationship with the man. The prosecution evidence concerned the alleged use of her police position and access to confidential systems to assist criminal activity.

What did the computer records reveal?

Analysis of police computer systems showed that Hamid searched for information about four people between October 2021 and March 2022.

The IOPC said there was no apparent legitimate policing purpose for the searches. At least two of the people investigated through the police systems were contacted by Hamid shortly afterwards.

Police computer systems contain sensitive information that is accessed for operational and safeguarding reasons. Officers are expected to use that access only when it is necessary and connected to their official duties.

In Hamid’s case, investigators identified searches that could not be justified by a policing purpose. The searches formed the basis of the computer misuse charges.

The IOPC said the evidence demonstrated that Hamid had accessed information unlawfully and had provided information to an organised crime group.

What charges did the former officer face?

Hamid faced three charges of misconduct in public office. She also faced four counts of computer misuse and one charge relating to the transmission of an image or sound from inside a prison through electronic communications.

The charges covered separate aspects of the alleged conduct.

The misconduct in public office charges related to the misuse of her position and the provision of confidential information. The computer misuse charges concerned unauthorised access to information held on police computer systems.

The prison communications charge concerned the unlawful transmission of an image or sound from within a prison using electronic communications.

The IOPC said Hamid first appeared at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court in June 2025. Following the investigation, a file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which authorised the charges.

What did the IOPC say about the case?

Amanda Rowe, IOPC Director of Engagement, said Hamid’s conduct had damaged the trust placed in the police.

“Disclosing confidential information without reasonable excuse or justification can significantly damage the trust and confidence that members of the public place in the police,” Rowe said, according to the IOPC statement.

She described Hamid’s behaviour as “audacious, corrupt and criminal”. Rowe said the former officer had used her position of power to assist criminal activity rather than prevent it.

“Her actions – in using her position of power to assist criminal activity rather than clamp down on it – were a complete betrayal of the public’s trust and have no place in policing,” Rowe said.

Rowe also said Hamid’s conduct represented a serious failure of judgement and professionalism. She added that the investigation had ensured the former officer was held accountable and had resulted in her receiving a criminal record.

The IOPC director said the evidence indicated that the case was an isolated example of police corruption on this scale. However, she said the sentence sent a clear message to any officer who misused their position.

Why was the investigation directed by the IOPC?

The investigation began after a referral from Greater Manchester Police in January 2022.

It was directed by the IOPC and conducted by the GMP Anti-Corruption Unit. This meant that the IOPC had oversight and direction of the investigation while GMP’s specialist unit carried out investigative work.

Anti-corruption investigations can involve police intelligence, officer conduct, system access, communications and relationships with individuals connected to criminal activity. In this case, the investigation examined Hamid’s conduct over a period that included the alleged misuse of police systems and the sharing of confidential information.

After the investigation concluded, the evidence file was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS authorised the charges that were later considered by the court.

The process resulted in Hamid’s conviction at Liverpool Crown Court and her subsequent imprisonment.

What does the sentence mean for police information security?

The sentence highlights the consequences of using police information for a purpose unrelated to policing.

Confidential intelligence can include information about police operations, surveillance, individuals of interest and investigations. If such information reaches people involved in organised crime, it may help them evade detection, change their behaviour or interfere with police work.

The IOPC’s account of the case indicates that the information shared by Hamid was used to help a person linked to the supply of Class A drugs avoid surveillance. The court also heard evidence about unauthorised searches and subsequent contact with individuals whose details had been accessed.

The case therefore involved both the alleged disclosure of intelligence and the alleged misuse of the systems holding that information.

The sentence also demonstrates that criminal liability can arise when an officer abuses access granted through their employment. Police officers may have legitimate access to sensitive systems, but that access is restricted by professional duties, law and operational requirements.

What happens after the conviction?

Hamid has been sentenced to three years in prison. The four-month terms for computer misuse and the illegal prison communications offence will run at the same time as the three-year sentence.

The IOPC said the case had concluded with a criminal conviction and custodial sentence. The former officer’s conduct is no longer being considered solely as an internal disciplinary matter because it resulted in criminal findings in court.

The sentence follows the conviction recorded at Liverpool Crown Court on 9 July 2026. The IOPC’s statement did not provide further details about any separate police misconduct proceedings or additional employment sanctions.

Hamid’s case is part of the IOPC’s wider work investigating allegations that police officers or staff have abused their positions. The watchdog has continued to publish updates involving police corruption, misuse of systems and serious misconduct.

Background: How did the case develop?

The case began with a referral from GMP to the IOPC in January 2022. The IOPC then directed an investigation carried out by GMP’s Anti-Corruption Unit.

Evidence gathered during the investigation covered events between October 2021 and June 2022. Investigators examined searches carried out on police computer systems, messages between Hamid and a man connected to an organised crime group, and her movements while she was under investigation.

The investigation found that Hamid had searched for four individuals without an apparent legitimate policing purpose. At least two were contacted shortly afterwards.

Investigators also examined the relationship between Hamid and a man involved in a criminal network supplying Class A drugs. Evidence presented to the court included messages indicating that he was concerned about police surveillance and that Hamid helped him by explaining how to check for it and changing routes.

On 16 June 2022, Hamid was observed entering a vehicle with the man after reporting herself sick and unable to work. A second man later approached the vehicle, and officers recovered cocaine from him.

Hamid was charged after the CPS authorised a file of evidence prepared following the IOPC-directed investigation. She appeared at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court in June 2025, was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court on 9 July 2026 and was sentenced on 16 September 2026.

Prediction: How could this affect police officers and the public?

The sentence is likely to reinforce scrutiny of police access to confidential intelligence and the monitoring of searches on law-enforcement computer systems.

For police officers and staff, the case may serve as a warning that personal relationships with people connected to organised crime can create serious professional and criminal risks, particularly where confidential information or police systems are involved.

For the public, the development may provide reassurance that allegations of serious police corruption can be referred to an independent oversight body and investigated through a process that can lead to prosecution.

However, the IOPC has described the case as an isolated example of corruption on this scale. The available information does not establish that the conduct represents a wider pattern across GMP or policing generally.

The main expected impact is therefore increased attention to information security, auditing of police-system searches and the duty of officers to report or avoid relationships that create conflicts of interest. The custodial sentence also signals that misuse of police authority can lead to consequences beyond dismissal or internal disciplinary action.