Former inspector barred after messaging sex worker

The hearing took place at Gloucestershire Police's headquarters

A former police inspector has been banned from policing after messaging a sex worker and posing for a Tinder profile picture in uniform and holding a firearm.

Insp James Wyatt was found to have committed gross misconduct by contacting the woman via a website and discussing prices for her services.

He was added to the police barred list following an accelerated hearing held by Gloucestershire Police.

Mr Wyatt was also accused of breaching data protection by sharing personal information about a woman who had applied to join the force.

Mr Wyatt attended her workplace and disclosed her application with a colleague.

Giles Bedloe, presenting the case for the Appropriate Authority, suggested Mr Wyatt's attendance at the recruit's place of work amounted to "an element of stalking".

“It was deeply inappropriate and caused significant impact,” he said.

Assistant chief constable Arman Mathieson, who chaired the hearing, also said it was "deeply inappropriate".

"She was left embarrassed by the attendance of a serving police officer at her place of work," he said.

Mr Wyatt was not present for the hearing at Gloucestershire Police HQ but did not dispute the facts of the four allegations.

He was also accused of failing to notify the force of the existence of two business interests and that he had set up a Tinder profile with a picture of himself in uniform holding a long-barrelled firearm.

Mr Mathieson said police regulations at the time did not prevent a police officer from contacting sex workers, but officers should be aware of the “vulnerabilities” of those engaged in that trade due to the risk of being trafficked or victims of organised crime.

'Lack of judgement'

But Mr Mathieson added there was "no evidence" Mr Wyatt had procured the services of the sex worker.

He said: "In conclusion taking into account all the circumstances together, there is a considerable amount of evidence of a lack of judgment and poor decision making that the public would not expect from a serving police officer.

“He is highly culpable, and he has no one else to blame. His actions were deliberate.

“He is unaware of the harm he has caused to himself, his colleagues, the public and the wider police service."

Mr Mathieson said his decision was that the breaches of standards of behaviour were so serious that they amounted to gross misconduct.