IOPC update following conclusion of inquest into the death of four Vietnamese men in Oldham fire

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has released the findings of its investigation into the conduct of three Greater Manchester Police (GMP) officers over their handling of information relating to a major fire in Oldham that resulted in the deaths of four Vietnamese men.

The partial remains of Uoc Van Nguyen, Cuong Van Chu, Duong Van Nguyen and Nam Thanh Lee were recovered from Bismark House Mill in Bower Street following the fire in May 2022. 

An inquest which concluded today (20 March) at Manchester Coroner’s Court, determined the four men, died as a result of the fire. Following the conclusion of the inquest, we can now report the findings of our independent investigation which concluded in April 2024. 

We can now confirm that, following a thorough investigation, we found no case to answer for misconduct for the three officers under investigation. We found the actions of a senior officer amounted to gross incompetence, for failing to disclose information they had received about concern for the welfare of a Vietnamese man who had reportedly been staying at the mill. 

Another officer also underwent reflective practice for their handling of this information once they were made aware of it. 

IOPC Director Amanda Rowe said:

“Our thoughts remain with all the families and friends of the four men who lost their lives, as well as all those affected by these tragic circumstances.

“Loved ones will have spent a long period of time with unanswered questions. I don’t underestimate how difficult this time has been for them, and I would again, like to extend my deepest sympathies. 

“Our investigation was independent of the police and allowed us to better understand how officers handled potentially crucial information about one of the victims.  

“Evidence gathered during our investigation was shared with the Coroner to help inform the inquest into the deaths, hopefully helping to answer any outstanding questions the families may have had.” 

We began our investigation following a referral from the force in September 2022 after it became aware of information received in July 2022, two months after the fire.  

In the early hours of 7 May 2022, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS) requested police assistance in response to the fire at the derelict mill. The building was considered too dangerous to enter and search. 

Two weeks later, on 21 May, GMP received information from the Vietnamese Catholic Chaplaincy in London, about a request for information from the family of Uoc Van Nguyen, who said he had been staying at the “fire house”. 

Our investigation found that in the following days, further information was passed on and a senior GMP officer asked two other officers to “review” it. The Vietnamese Catholic Chaplaincy was advised that the man was not known to police and that the fire service believed nobody was in the warehouse at the time of the fire. 

Two months later, on 23 July, demolition workers found human remains at the site of the fire and the following day. GMP declared a major and critical incident with a strategic co-ordination group strategy put in place with dedicated force specialist resources deployed. 

We found that the senior officer attended meetings on 25 July, 27 July and 18 August in which they did not disclose information that was received from the GMP Chaplaincy regarding concerns for a young Vietnamese man. 

We accepted that the senior officer – who we investigated for potential gross misconduct – did not intentionally deceive colleagues. As a result, we found no case to answer in relation to their conduct, but their actions amounted to gross incompetence. 

Two officers were also served with a notice for informing them they were under investigation for a potential breach of professional standards that could amount to misconduct for their actions after being asked by the senior officer to review the information. 

We found minimum checks were carried out and lines of inquiry were missed. We did not consider this met the threshold for misconduct but one of the officers underwent reflective practice to improve their performance in future.