A former Merseyside Police constable who repeatedly contacted sex workers, visited them while on and off duty, tried to wriggle out of a speeding prosecution by misleading another force, and assaulted his partner has been found to have committed gross misconduct, yet was granted anonymity at a public misconduct hearing. The panel ruled that the officer, referred to throughout as ‘Officer A’, should not be named in order to safeguard the welfare of vulnerable third parties, as well as the former officer himself, citing ‘exceptional’ circumstances and extensive medical evidence.
The first allegation concerned a pattern of contact with sex workers over a lengthy period, from 9th December 2020 to 4th August 2022. The panel found that the former officer contacted sex workers on various dates, with 31 contacts taking place while he was on duty and eight while off duty. On 4th June 2022, CCTV footage showed him visiting a sex worker while ‘in part police uniform’, on the same day he visited a sex worker he had previously ‘stop checked’ during the course of his duties. Investigators also analysed billing data linked to a mobile number attributed to him, identifying calls and SMS messages with numbers attributed to adult sex workers and escorts, including individuals classed as vulnerable adults.
The panel referred to more than 380 instances where the former officer contacted relevant numbers, alongside evidence from his internet search history showing he frequently accessed adult websites where sex workers advertised. A covert investigation placed him at locations associated with sex workers at, or around, the time he was in contact with those same numbers. His banking records were also examined, revealing 147 ATM cash withdrawals between 1st November 2020 and 15th June 2022, with a pattern identified between ANPR data, cash withdrawals, and calls made around the time he was contacting sex workers or was in areas he routinely visited.
One sex worker, the panel noted, admitted being a drug user and engaging in sex work to fund addiction. Billing data showed the former officer contacted her on 11 occasions between February and June 2022. Having considered the evidence ‘in its totality’, the panel was satisfied that he was in regular contact with sex workers while largely on duty, and that the contact was for ‘sexual gratification’ rather than any legitimate policing purpose.
The second allegation involved an attempt to have a speeding Notice of Intended Prosecution ‘quashed’. On 28th February 2022, the former officer was deployed with colleagues to the Devon and Cornwall Police area as part of a county lines task force, driving a hire vehicle in a seven-vehicle convoy of Merseyside officers. While travelling on the M5 in the Avon and Somerset area, he triggered a speed camera at 93mph in a 70mph zone. The panel found there were no operational requirements for exceeding the speed limit. Two other officers were also caught speeding and accepted responsibility, one attending a speed awareness course and the other receiving points and a fine.
By contrast, the former officer contacted Avon and Somerset Police on 5th April 2022 to challenge his NIP, suggesting it related to county lines work and that he was en route to an incident. He then emailed the camera enforcement department with a document inferring an operational reason for speeding and attached a letter of thanks from an Avon and Somerset ACC to Merseyside Police. Telephone evidence showed he and colleagues discussed the speeding and indicated they would accept responsibility, yet he persisted in trying to recast his own conduct as operational. Even after being ordered by an inspector to have the NIP reinstated and accept the consequences, the panel found he failed to do so.
The third allegation concerned domestic abuse. During the investigation, messages and images were recovered from a mobile device attributed to the former officer, showing bruising to his partner’s arm. The panel found that, during an argument on 7th February 2021, he caused the bruising by grabbing hold of his partner’s arm to move her away from a doorway. His subsequent messages included an admission to the assault and an apology, acknowledging he was ‘so angry’, and promising it would not happen again.
Taken together, the panel was satisfied that the former officer’s behaviour amounted to gross misconduct. Because he had already resigned, the panel could not dismiss him, but it determined that dismissal would have been the appropriate outcome had he still been serving.
