Police spoke to Gnanachandran Balachandran two hours before murder

Gnanachandran Balachandran, 38, from Milton Keynes, was told he must serve at least 18 years

Police investigating a kidnap spoke to a suspect already named to them but failed to carry out checks on him, a report has found.

Two hours after officers spoke to Gnanachandran Balachandran, his victim - Suren Sivananthan - was found murdered near the same spot.

But the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) found they "did not breach standards expected of them".

Thames Valley Police said it "welcomes the findings" of the IOPC probe.

Balachandran and a 17-year-old boy were jailed for life for Mr Sivananthan's murder in September 2017.

Mr Sivananthan, who was visiting from Canada, had been staying with Balachandran's estranged wife, who was planning a divorce.

Police discovered Mr Sivanathan's body in a car park at about 04:00 GMT on 21 January

Luton Crown Court heard Balachandran organised the abduction of Mr Sivananthan from the Secklow Gate shopping area in Milton Keynes on 20 January 2017.

For 12 hours, he was held captive, plied with alcohol and beaten in three different locations, suffering 87 injuries.

His badly beaten body was found in a car park outside a parade of shops in Great Linford, Milton Keynes, at 04:00 GMT the following day.

The IOPC said officers had been sent out at 02:00 to a location in Milton Keynes where the victim or suspect were believed to have previously been.

They spotted three men in front of a store, before one of them - Balachandran - came over and spoke to them, giving his name.

Suren Sivananthan was found dead by police after he had been held captive for 12 hours

The officers were later told it was the suspect who had been named to them in an earlier briefing.

In its report, the IOPC said: "The officers said the man they had spoke to had been very calm and non-evasive and they, therefore, did not see the need to run a check on him."

"In the investigator's opinion, the evidence suggested the officers did not breach the standards expected of them, or any policies and procedures."

The watchdog concluded there was "insufficient evidence" for an employment tribunal.

The IOPC report does not mention any names but it is understood it refers to this case.