hearing held at Merseyside Police headquarters<\/a> on Monday, July 14.<\/p>\nIt was heard during the four day hearing how Sgt Ainsworth had visited Officer A’s home address 14 separate times while he was on shift, with an audit revealing that he had not conducted work during these visits.<\/p>\n
The panel, chaired by Assistant Chief Constable Alex Goss, heard how during one the visits from Officer A to Sgt Ainsworth’s home, she had gone to tell him how her ex-partner planned on telling the sergeant’s wife about their relationship.<\/p>\n
It was concluded the reason for each of the visits during working hours was to “develop their personal relationship and offer mutual support to each other given their prevailing personal challenges”, and was not for sexual purposes.<\/p>\n
During one particular visit, Sgt Ainsworth attended Officer A’s home address while at least eight of his colleagues were attending a police incident, with him failing to provide any visible support to those in attendance.<\/p>\n
He was also found to have not completed any work while at her address and was there for personal reasons during working hours.<\/p>\n
The panel heard how on more than one one occasion Officer A drove a police vehicle to Sgt Ainsworth’s home while on duty, with the pair in the “formative stage of their relationship”.<\/p>\n
It said in the report: “Officer A, while at the location awaiting PS Ainsworth’s arrival she continued with her work tasks: she remained at the location for the duration of her refreshment break for 50 and 45 minutes, respectively.<\/p>\n
“The Panel concluded that Officer A attended PS Ainsworth’s home address during her refreshment break for purely personal reasons. Notwithstanding Officer A attending for personal reasons, the panel accepted that in any event Officer A continued to undertake her work tasks.<\/p>\n
“In all the circumstances, the panel concluded that Officer A was entitled to attend PS Ainsworth’s home address during her refreshment break on the said occasions.”<\/p>\n
It was also found both of the police officers had searched each others collar numbers on the internal system during working hours.<\/p>\n
Officer A was found to have committed one count of misconduct, with Sgt Ainsworth proven to have committed three counts of misconduct. Both had one allegation each not proven by the panel.<\/p>\n
The panel deemed Officer A’s actions as misconduct and found that her culpability was low due to her visiting Sgt Ainsworth’s home address during a refreshment break and only searching his collar number on the police system once. The harm caused by her actions was deemed as low.<\/p>\n
Officer A was handed a written warning.<\/p>\n
Sgt Ainsworth was found to have committed gross misconduct, with the culpability of his actions high due to it being “planned, intentional and deliberate”. The harm caused by the officer was also deemed as high.<\/p>\n
The report said: “In all the circumstances, the Panel considered that if the public was aware of the proven conduct, it would undermine public confidence in and the reputation of the police.”<\/p>\n
It continued: “Turning to personal mitigation, the Panel noted that PS Ainsworth was suffering various personal stressors at the material time.<\/p>\n
“Further, the Panel had regard to the bundle of character evidence provided on behalf of the PS Ainsworth which the Panel considered to be exceptional.”<\/p>\n
Sgt Steven Ainsworth was dismissed without notice and added to the College of Policing barred list.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Sgt Ainsworth has been barred from policing after a four day misconduct hearingA firearms sergeant has been sacked…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":355092,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8815],"tags":[748,393,4884,179,274,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-355091","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-liverpool","8":"tag-britain","9":"tag-england","10":"tag-great-britain","11":"tag-liverpool","12":"tag-merseyside-police","13":"tag-uk","14":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115051824838575041","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/355091","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=355091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/355091\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/355092"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=355091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=355091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=355091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"Merseyside](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/0_Merseyside-Polices-new-\u00a348m-Headquarters-on-St-Anne-StreetPic-Andrew-Teebay.jpg\")
A firearms sergeant has been sacked for his relationship with a colleague during work hours(Image: Andrew Teebay Liverpool Echo)<\/p>\n