A WEST Yorkshire Police officer has been sacked for gross misconduct after asking a colleague for pictures and videos of her feet.
A misconduct hearing told PC Jack Cunningham, 28, that there was "no doubt" his motive was "sexual gratification".
During police officer training, PC Cunningham made inappropriate and sexual comments to a female also on the course.
He offered to car share with her to university to save on fuel costs in return for photographs and videos of her feet.
PC Cunningham also sent a suggested sexual pose for these images.
On one occasion whilst in class at university, he messaged her asking to take off her shoes, saying, “I was going to ask you to dangle them and yeah that’s why they’re my favourite, when I walked in today and saw em I was like”.
He added several emotional and sexual emojis to the message.
The pair exchanged Facebook messages, but she cut contact when the messages got stranger.
PC Cunningham said he developed a crush on her and raised the subject of feet “to test the water” as it was important to him.
He agreed that it was premature to ask for feet pics on the second day of the course, but said that he didn’t just ask anyone for feet pics.
As a result of the misconduct hearing last month, PC Cunningham was issued a "Dismissal without Notice” and placed on the College of Policing Barred List.
The panel acknowledged he had done "well" in his role as PCSO for three years and was "committed to a career as a police officer".
They added that his character references "clearly" held him in high regard.
However, the panel said PC Cunningham should have known his requests for “feet pics” and offers of lift shares were unwelcome and caused a colleague to be uncomfortable and upset.
They said his behaviour was "persistent" and showed a "lack of respect and courtesy to others".
His conduct was described as "discreditable" and had the potential to "undermine confidence in policing".
The outcome added: "Victims of crime, and particularly of domestic violence and sexual assaults, need to be able to trust officers sent to assist them and not to worry about whether they might become the subject of unwanted attention from an officer."
In conclusion, the Panel "did give serious consideration to the imposition of a final written warning but concluded that the only sanction it could impose in this case was one of dismissal without notice".
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article