HAMPSHIRE’S former top police officer has been cleared of wrongdoing for a second time over the management of a child sex abuse inquiry.

Avon and Somerset Chief Constable Andy Marsh, pictured, was part of a police probe following complaints into his role during Hampshire Constabulary’s investigations at Stanbridge Earls School, near Romsey, named Operation Flamborough.

The operation was set up to probe how officers investigated two rape claims against students, made by a girl at the school.

But yesterday Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Sue Mountstevens announced that she had decided not to uphold the complaints received in May last year, as no evidence had been forthcoming to support the claims.

This was the second time Mr Marsh, who became Avon and Somerset chief constable in February last year, had been probed over the investigation.

In 2014 he had been subject of an inquiry by Essex Police, which found there were ‘’no grounds to justify’’ misconduct proceedings against him.

This came after former Hampshire and Isle of Wight PCC Simon Hayes had commissioned the east-coast force to investigate “a number of complaints” against the then Chief Constable.

In a statement released following the complaints last May, Mr Marsh said: “My oversight of Operation Flamborough has already been subject to the closest independent scrutiny.

“However we cannot forget the degree to which the family, and especially their child, have suffered and if further scrutiny is of help to them in recovering and moving forward then I welcome it.

“The fundamental principles of openness and transparency should be the bedrock of policing. That has been my abiding belief through the last 28 years and it stands as true today as it did when I joined the service.”

As previously reported in 2013, a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal found that the £39,000-a-year school had discriminated against a girl and that staff members failed to tell the youngster’s parents that she had complained of pain in an intimate part of her body.

The tribunal found that a vulnerable youngster had suffered “appalling abuse” at the hands of another student, while the school was slammed by panel members for being “unsystematic, unprofessional, ad hoc and completely inadequate” when it came to protecting the youngster, who cannot be named for legal reasons.