Andrew Tate probe faces fresh scrutiny over handling of ‘indecent child images’

Andrew Tate, left, and his brother, Tristan, are awaiting possible extradition from the US to the UK on sex trafficking and other charges. Picture: PA

A police watchdog is investigating a force’s handling of alleged indecent child images seized during a search of Andrew Tate’s home back in 2015.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has confirmed a report by the Daily Telegraph that it was looking into whether Hertfordshire Constabulary’s inquiry into material found on the influencer’s electronic devices at the time “met the local and national guidance in relation to child sex exploitation and evidence of human trafficking”.

It forms part of a wider probe by the regulator into how investigators dealt with sex abuse claims made against Tate when first reported more than a decade ago.

The case had been closed but was reopened earlier this year after the IOPC said a former detective constable could face gross misconduct proceedings for “alleged failures to properly investigate” the case.

British prosecutors are currently seeking the extradition from the US of Andrew Tate, 39, and his brother Tristan, 38, to face a series of criminal charges, including rape and sex trafficking.

Andrew Tate is also accused of making and distributing indecent images of a child and possessing extreme pornography.

The former professional kickboxers, who hold dual US and British citizenship, have denied wrongdoing.

In court documents filed last month in support of the extradition, police alleged that 168 indecent images of a child had been found on phones and a laptop belonging to Andrew Tate, following his arrest at his home in Hitchin in 2015.

Of these, 66 were classed as the most serious category A tier.

He is also said to have shared images and a video of the child committing an indecent act on WhatsApp.

It is alleged that Tate knew the girl, who came to the UK from abroad to work in his sex webcam business, was 17 at the time.

Taking, making, sharing and possessing indecent images of a person under 18 is illegal in the UK, and carries with it a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.

An IOPC spokesperson said: “We have been independently investigating the actions and decision making of Hertfordshire Constabulary following multiple reports of sexual offending by a man, which was first reported to the force in 2015.

“Our investigation began following a voluntary conduct referral from the force in December 2023.

“We are investigating a former detective constable for potential gross misconduct, relating to alleged failures to properly investigate, and two former detective sergeants at the level of misconduct, who supervised the investigation.

“As part of our investigation, we can confirm we are examining whether Hertfordshire Constabulary’s investigation of potential criminality discovered on the man’s devices met the local and national guidance in relation to child sex exploitation and evidence of human trafficking.”

A spokesman for the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire major crime unit said: “We understand the interest in this case. However, we would remind the media and members of the public that as a result of charges being authorised, legal proceedings are now active and we are therefore unable to comment further at this time.

“Alongside the criminal justice process, an investigation by the IOPC is also being carried out in relation to the reports made to Hertfordshire Constabulary in 2015.”

The two brothers will face separate extradition hearings at a Miami court next month.

They have been detained in custody since their arrest in July, sparking criticism by the pair’s legal team.

Their lawyer, Joseph McBride, said: “The constitution forbids punishing people who have not been convicted of a crime.

He added: We will challenge every charge, every alleged factual basis, and every failure to satisfy the requirements of American law and the extradition treaty.

“You don’t have to like Andrew and Tristan Tate or agree with anything they say, but if the constitution doesn’t protect them, it doesn’t protect you either.”