A police officer accused of "groping" an abuse victim tearfully gave evidence to his trial yesterday.
PC Adam Hoyle allegedly abused his position by engaging in intimate relationships with "vulnerable" women whom he first came into contact with after they had reported allegations of domestic and sexual abuse to Merseyside Police. He denies having had sexual contact with two such complainants during his shifts, including one supposed incident at a police station.
The 39-year-old faced questions from the witness box at Liverpool Crown Court for a second day in Thursday. And while Hoyle told the jury from the stand that he "knows he is going to lose his job", he protested: "I haven't done it, it hasn't happened."
READ MORE: Man so drunk he 'couldn't even speak' caused head-on horror crash
Steven Tettey, defending, first resumed his questioning of his client. Having asked him about a woman who he is alleged to have "kissed and groped" at Formby Police Station on Wednesday afternoon, he turned to a second whom he is said to have had sex with "every few days" over the course of several months while on duty.
Hoyle stated that he and a colleague, whom he was tutoring, had initially attended her home after she reported receiving "inappropriate messages online" from her estranged ex and having had fishing wire left strung across her doorway. He then returned the following day in order to give her a "victims of crime leaflet", after which he gave her his phone number and the two "struck up a friendship".
The defendant said that this had coincided with him going through a breakup with the mother of his children, adding: "On one or two of the visits, I was offered coffee at the house. I said yes, I wasn't missing any work.
"During that time she would discuss her personal situation with me, which reflected my home situation – although she was further down the line. We both shared similar experiences.
"A lot of officers have tea or coffee stops on their routes – sometimes family or friends, sometimes people they have met through work. My radio is always switched on, and I'm ready to leave at the drop of a hat."
Mr Tettey asked: "Was there any reason why, as an officer, you divulged your own personal life?"
Hoyle replied: "I was experiencing it myself. At that time I was living with my ex-partner, although we weren't in a relationship, because we had two children.
"It felt similar. I wasn't in a position to have this discussion with anybody else.
"There were no support networks at work, and I'm not from Liverpool. It felt like there was somebody to offload to about personal matters."
Mr Tettey continued: "She said you made sexual advances towards her. Did that ever happen?"
Hoyle simply responded "no". Mr Tettey then asked: "Was there a relationship beyond anything platonic?"
The officer said: "No, absolutely not. It was a bit of a shock listening to her account.
"That hasn't happened. It was practically an impossible scenario.
"Although I wasn't in a relationship, I still had commitments at home. There's no way my ex-partner would let me stay out overnight, anywhere."
Hoyle stated that he had visited her home "no more than 15 times, all on duty" and that "some of those would have been very quick, in and out". Mr Tettey said: "She described that relationship becoming sexual and you having sex in her property with her every few days over that period, is it possible that you could be absent from your duties for prolonged periods of time?"
The PC replied: "No, no. I was a patrol officer. You don't have an infinite pool of officers.
"They need to deal with emergencies. So no, absolutely not."
Mr Tettey then asked: "Was there any sexual contact between you at any point in time?"
Hoyle responded: "No. She hasn't described any of my marks, tattoos or anything that anyone who had seen me undressed would be able to identify."
Judge David Aubrey KC interrupted at this stage to clarify that the woman had not been asked about this during the course of her interviews or the trial. Mr Tettey then continued: "Is there any possibility that she may have misconstrued your behaviour as attempting sexual advances?
Hoyle said: "No. Absolutely not."
He was then asked about a third woman whom he had a sexual relationship with after meeting her through his duties. Hoyle has admitted two counts of misconduct in a public in a public office in relation to her, having first come into contact with her in 2012 after she reported her former partner for harassment.
The officer, who first joined the force in 2009 and was primarily based at Speke Police Station, later began texting her and visiting her house, where he accepted through his guilty plea to having "engaged in kissing her in her home while on duty". He then resumed contact with her in July 2016 by contacting her over Facebook and subsequently attended her home again and had sex with her during a shift.
Hoyle said of this: "I was invited to her address off duty, after work, and I attended. I was probably in a place where I wanted a bit of support outside the household.
"I was having a bit of trouble with my family in Burnley, where I'm from. My granddad was a bit of a parental figure growing up, he had cancer at the time.
"I attended her address off duty. I finished work, I had a coffee and on my way out of the house I kissed her."
Hoyle has also pleaded guilty to a third count of misconduct concerning a fourth woman, whose home he attended after she reported anti-social behaviour and a sexual assault by her partner. He later contacted her over the phone and attended her address on "numerous occasions", later forming a sexual relationship with her – including having sex with her while he was on duty.
Mr Tettey then asked him: "What was your motivation for joining the police?"
Hoyle appeared to become emotional as he replied: "When I was younger, we had quite a volatile household. There was my mum, my dad and my younger brother.
"There was a lot of alcohol abuse, mainly by my mum. She would then get violent towards my dad, trying to illicit a reaction towards her.
"When he decided to react, he was quite violent unfortunately. I remember being assaulted myself trying to split it up."
Hoyle said that his father had been hitting his mother with a metal chain and he "got hit in the head" as a result, having been aged around five or six at the time. He added: "I distinctly remember walking with my mum, whose face was covered in blood, and nobody helped us.
"We went to a close family friend's house, and they refused to let us in the house. That was my motivation.
"Nobody helped us. I wanted to use that experience to help."
When asked about his conviction, Hoyle said: "I know I'm going to lose my job and pension and everything that comes with that. Access to my children, yes."
Mr Tettey then asked why he had pleaded not guilty to the counts in relation to the other two women. He replied: "Because I haven't done it.
"It hasn't happened. What they are saying isn't correct.
"I think I may be guilty of helping more than other officers do, maybe doing a little more. That's just because of my experience growing up.
"It's a fault of mine. I think I also worry about what would happen if I didn't act.
"If I didn't do that check and nobody had been deployed and she's seriously injured the following day, I'd be in this position again for neglecting my duty. What they're alleging hasn't happened.
"Regrettably, I struck up a friendship. I shouldn't have done that, but there was nothing sexual."
Steven Swift then began to cross-exam Hoyle for the prosecution. He said: "Effectively, what you are saying, is they're liars, aren't you?"
Hoyle replied: "Yes."
Mr Swift said: "They've come here to lie. They are false allegations that have been made up."
Hoyle responded: "Yes. Correct."
The prosecutor then asked: "Why are they lying? Why have they come forward to make up these allegations?"
Hoyle said: "I don't know what their motivations are. I'm not sure, I couldn't tell you.
"There's no benefit of me saying they're lying when I've admitted three serious offences. I stand to gain nothing by being here.
"I've already lost my job, there's a custodial sentence at the end of it. I don't stand to benefit from anything."
Mr Swift stated it was suggested to the second woman during her evidence that she was "making up the allegations, effectively because you weren't reciprocating". He added: "She wanted some sort of sexual relationship with you, and you weren't prepared to go along with it."
Hoyle said: "Because of the financial difficulty she was facing, she did make a remark about trying to rent one of her rooms out to me. Knowing the situation she was in, I rejected that offer."
Mr Swift countered: "That's not the same. You weren't engaging in sex but she wanted to, is that your case?"
Hoyle replied: "That's not my case. The fact is, she offered a room.
"Whether she's upset at that, I don't know. Maybe she wanted that to happen and it didn't happen, I can't tell you – I don't know why she's said what she's said."
During the court's afternoon session, Hoyle "100 per cent" agreed that he had "breached professional standards" by "forming a friendship with a vulnerable victim". But Mr Swift said: "But it was more than that, wasn't it?
"She speaks of you flattering her, telling her she looked lovely, stroking her hair. She's just lying?"
Hoyle responded: "Yes. I thought we were going through similar phases in our personal lives – while I admit she shouldn't have been the person I spoke to about my problems, I did.
"It didn't turn sexual at all. Not once."
Mr Swift put to him that "it went to having sex two or three times a week", to which Hoyle replied: "Absolutely not, nope. That is not what happened."
He was then asked whether he "had the time to have had sex with her" during his visits to her home, to which he said: "I've not had sex with her. How long does it take to have sex?
"There was enough time to go to her address and have a cup of coffee. I was there long enough to have a conversation and a cup of coffee with her."
Mr Swift told the jury of six men and six women during the prosecution's opening on Tuesday that an Independent Office for Police Conduct investigation was initially sparked after concerns were raised by Hoyle's then partner. He said: "It is the prosecution's case that the defendant chose to deliberately establish sexual relationships and inappropriate contact with the victims of domestic abuse and sexual assaults, who were encountering the defendant as he was responding to calls or complaints being made to the police.
"These were vulnerable women who contacted the police as a result of a background of domestic abuse, looking to the police for support. The crown say that the defendant essentially took advantage of that position, befriending the women and thereafter engaging in sexual activity with them."
Jurors were told Hoyle, of Yelverton Close in Halewood, first met one of the women in December 2018 after she reported she had been subjected to domestic abuse and assaults at the hands of her former partner. He would go on to attend her home around 15 times, which she believed were visits relating to the ongoing investigation.
However, no evidence was found of him having recorded further information on her case on these occasions. Hoyle was said to have gone on to "exploit her vulnerability" by kissing her and touching her on her breasts and bottom.
He also reportedly attempted to place his hand down the front of her trousers on one occasion, but was rebuffed by her "knocking his hand away". When interviewed about his alleged behaviour, she said: "He used to kiss me every time he'd come.
"He tried to put his hands down my pants once, but I'm not like that. To be honest, I think the only reason I let him kiss me was because I felt comfortable because he was a police officer."
She also alleged that further sexual activity had taken place between them at Formby Police Station. The woman said that this involved Hoyle "kissing and groping her" before returning her home.
He was then said to have used force systems to access information in relation to this same complainant on three dates in June and November 2019, which was "not for legitimate policing purposes". The defendant had no longer been involved in investigations relating to her complaint at these times.
The court was told another woman then contacted the police in November last year after hearing news of Hoyle's arrest and charge on the radio as she drove home from work. He had initially attended her home address back in February 2016 after she reported her ex for harassment.
The officer then began to regularly visit her house and message and call her, which developed into a sexual relationship "within weeks". She recalled his police uniform being left strewn across the floor of her bedroom after they began having sex "every few days" over a period of several months, including overnight stays by Hoyle at her property.
Under interview, she later said that she had been in a "horrendous" situation at the time as she was "going through a divorce". Their relationship was said to have "evolved quite quickly", but she allegedly had to block his number after calling the fling off.
She added: "I just wasn't ready for putting myself in that position again. It just wasn't right.
"The timing wasn't right at all, but he was quite persistent. He came back quite a few times saying he was upset, he didn't want it to end.
"He wanted to stay in touch and see how I'd be in a few weeks. I think at the time I blocked his number, because he became quite persistent."
Detectives were later able to establish that Hoyle's police radio had been located within "the vicinity" of her home on 16 dates between February and June 2016. When quizzed by detectives, he denied having had a sexual relationship with her but "admitted they had become friends" and that he had attended her address while on duty.
Mr Swift described how two further complainants came forward during the course of the investigation stating that Hoyle had also developed relationships with them, including "kissing and sexual activity", having come into contact with him after reporting domestic and sexual abuse to the police. He previously pleaded guilty to three counts of misconduct in relation to to these women.
But, in respect of the two other alleged victims, the PC claims that "there was contact or visits but no sexual activity or inappropriate acts occurred". Mr Swift added: "Clearly, police officers carry out their duties for the benefit of the public as a whole.
"If they neglect or misconduct themselves in the course of those duties, it leads to a breach or abuse of the public's trust. The crown says that trust and confidence is undermined in this case."
Hoyle denies two counts of misconduct in a public office and three charges of unauthorised access to a police computer. The trial continues.
Don't miss the biggest and breaking stories by signing up to the Echo Daily newsletter here