Police worker and kids’ football coach in online sex chats with ‘girl’

Gary Marsden actually communicated with and shared a sexualised photo with an undercover police officer.

The 50-year-old appeared before Liverpool Crown Court yesterday, Monday, to face sentence after admitting a charge of attempted sexual communications with a child.

It was heard that, in his pre-sentence report, the dad-of-two claimed not to have a sexual interest in children except on the day of the chats.

However, this basis of plea was abandoned, allowing the case to proceed to sentence without the need for a trial of issue.

The charge arose out of internet chats that he took part in on February 8, 2023, explained Martyn Walsh, prosecuting.

Marsden communicated online with an undercover police officer who was posing as both a 22-year-old woman called Sophie and a 14-year-old girl named ‘Emz’.

The court heard how he sent a sexual image of himself in his boxer shorts and solicited a photo of the ‘girl’ in her nightie.

The officer played the roles of both Emz and Sophie during the course of the conversation, and the defendant, the Crown said, ‘believed and intended all that he wrote in those messages’.

At the time of the offending, the defendant was employed by Cheshire Police as a civilian supervisor in the motorway control unit, based off Robb Lane in Newton-le-Willows – a job he had been in since 2014.

He resigned from the force in May 2023 during an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

The case against him was that he used a work computer to log into his Twitter account, and that he was in work when he was talking with the undercover officer.

The prosecution case was also that he took a photo of himself in his boxer shorts to send to the ‘child’ when he was in work.

Moreover, at the time of the offence he was the manager of a children's football team, and when he was arrested, he was living at the family home with his wife and two children.

Gary Marsden leaving Liverpool Crown Court after receiving a suspended sentence

During chats, after being told by the ‘girl’ that she was aged 14, Marsden asked to see her nightie and called her ‘cute’ after being sent a photo by the officer.

He also asked her to show him her legs, and after being sent another photo by the officer, he replied ‘hot hot hot’.

The defendant called the girl ‘babe’ and ‘very sweet’, discussed having an erection and commented “I don’t mind some risk.”

Marsden also made mention of the ‘girl’ visiting his office on work experience and ‘kissing her all over’, adding that he thought she was ‘so sexy’ and ‘perfect’, and that he ‘liked her a lot’.

Chats included references to her ‘perfect bum’ and that he was ‘excited’ by the photo of her in the nightie.

The chat with the undercover officer ended that same day, with Cheshire Police officers attending his home address the following day, February 9, and arresting him.

Items seized from the address included his mobile phone, on which authorities found the corresponding chats and photos.

When interviewed under caution on March 9 2023, Marsden admitted that the Twitter account was his profile, and that it was only used and accessed by him.

He admitted the communicating with the female profiles and sending all images within the communication, but he claimed he did not believe it was real or that he was communicating with a child.

In mitigation, it was heard from Steven Nikolich, defending, that his client, who has no previous convictions, should be given some credit for his guilty plea entered during a trial.

“Clearly, he is someone the Probation Service can work with,” Mr Nikolich said, with the court hearing that the date of sentence was a ‘seminal day’ as Marsden had admitted his sexual interest in children.

Commenting that there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in his client’s case, Mr Nikolich asked the court to suspend the sentence of imprisonment.

Before sentencing, judge Anil Murray said: “Clearly, the threshold for custody has been crossed.

“The sentence is short enough to be considered for suspension, you are not thought to be a risk to the public, and you are a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.

Marsden was sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court

“On balance, I can just about suspend the sentence.”

Marsden, of Snowshill Drive in Wigan, was sentenced to nine months in prison, but this was suspended for the next two years.

During this time, he must also complete 25 rehabilitation activity requirement days and 150 hours of unpaid work in the community.

Moreover, the defendant was ordered to sign the sex offender register and abide by the terms of a sexual harm prevention order, both for the next 10 years.

Towards the cost of court proceedings, he was told he must pay £1,200, while an order was approved for the forfeiture and destruction of his mobile phone seized on his arrest.

Judge Murray added: “I reserve any breaches to myself, and if you reoffend or fail to carry out the work, we will meet again, I will remember you, and I am not likely to give you a second chance.”

Following the hearing, IOPC director of operations Steve Noonan said: “Marsden’s actions were abhorrent in sexually communicating with someone he believed to be a child.

“His actions amounted to predatory behaviour for his own sexual gratification.

“Marsden’s conviction sends a clear message for his appalling behaviour which significantly undermines the public confidence in policing.

“Our involvement ensured independent oversight of this sensitive investigation, and I am grateful to Cheshire Police’s counter corruption unit for its efforts in holding the former staff member accountable for his actions.”

The IOPC recommended Marsden had a case to answer for gross misconduct, and following a hearing in January this year, it was determined that his actions breached the police standards of professional behaviour.

This was relating to authority, respect, courtesy, discreditable conduct, honesty and integrity at the level of gross misconduct.

It was ruled he would have been dismissed without notice had he not already resigned, and he was placed on the barred list, meaning he cannot be employed in policing in the future.