Warning: This article contains graphic content and allegations of sexual assault

“I’m not going to admit to something I haven’t done”.

That was the message from a former Met Police officer who denies he performed a sex act on himself over a young girl in March 2021.

Andrew Kirkland, of Stoney Stanton, Leicester, offered a string of denials on day three of a trial in which he is accused of sexually assaulting the child, from Berkshire.

EVERYTHING FROM DAY TWO OF THE TRIAL

Giving evidence today (February 2), the 42-year-old, used to work as a neighbourhood police officer in Ickenham, denied the charges against him.

He alleged he did not perform a sex act on himself over the girl or take pictures of her naked.

He claimed he did not recall searching for pornography of girls ‘sleeping’ or ‘passed out’ three days before the alleged incident.

On day three of the trial, the court heard the transcript of Kirkland’s interview with police officers the evening of his arrest.

He told officers he entered the premises of the alleged incident around 3am having finished work.

The warehouse worker, who worked night shifts for DHL in Reading, claimed he had a cigarette before going to bed.

Kirkland claimed he then changed the girl’s sheets and went to bed.

In the transcript, Kirkland was asked a series of questions about his actions that evening before he was told of the alleged offence.

‘I’m annoyed that I’m here really, I’m getting to the point that I’m annoyed’, he said at one point.

Kirkland denied taking photos of the girl naked or sleeping as the child had alleged.

‘I certainly did not’, Kirkland claimed, urging officers to look at his phone for proof.

When questioned about allegations he performed a sex act over the girl, Kirkland denied this claim.

He then told officers he had ‘relieved himself’ by masturbating in bed that evening, something he admitted he failed to tell officers earlier in the interview.

Asked why he failed to tell officers this information earlier, he responded: ‘[Because] this is f****** serious, I’m absolutely s******* it.

“I’ve done nothing wrong, you can check my phone and I’ve done absolutely nothing wrong.”

An officer then asked the defendant if he was sexually attracted to children.

“Certainly not, no”, he claimed.

Later in the trial, Kirkland was called to the witness box to give live evidence to the jury.

He claimed he performed an act on himself and changed the girl's bedsheets.

Kirkland was quizzed on the prosecution’s argument that he took pictures of the girl as he ‘knew she was not wearing pants'.

Questioned by defence counsel Colin McCarraher as to whether he did this, he claimed: ‘definitely not’.

Earlier the court heard Kirkland had declined the opportunity to have a solicitor by his side at his police interview.

“Why on earth did you not decide to have a soliticor present at your police interview?”, Mr McCarraher asked Kirkland.

“Stupidity, really”, the ex-police officer responded, telling the court he wanted to deny the allegations against him rather than give ‘no comment’ answers.

The defence barrister then questioned Kirkland about his searches for online pornography, a number of which were based around girls sleeping or being passed out, the court heard on day two of the trial.

‘Passed out girl abused’, ‘amateur sleeping sex’ and ‘passed out and violated’ were some of the searches Kirkland allegedly made in a 15-minute period in the days leading up to the alleged assault.

Kirkland claimed he did not remember searching for these terms.

“For anybody who is familiar with pornographic content on the internet, when you search it will bring up websites.

“Those websites will have thumbnails of what that video is.”

Mr McCarraher questioned Kirkland as to why many of the search terms included ‘sleeping’ or ‘passed out’.

The defence barrister told Kirkland it was the prosecution’s case that these search terms were his motivation for the alleged sex act he performed over the girl.

“That’s completely wrong”, the accused responded.

At the close of the defence’s line of questioning, Kirkland again denied all the allegations against him.

Paul Fairley, prosecuting, also questioned Kirkland.

He took to his feet by asking the defendant if it was time to ‘stop this charade’ and admit to what he had done.

‘No’, he responded, ‘because I haven’t done the things you’re accusing me of.

‘I’m not going to admit to something I haven’t done.’

Mr Fairley moved to questions about Kirkland’s pornography searches.

The defendant told the court he looked at ‘many different types of porn’, meaning he could not verify how many times he had searched for porn of ‘passed out girls’.

Kirkland maintained he did not recall making the online searches. Mr Fairley suggested he did remember this information but did not want to admit to it. Kirkland denied this.

One line of questioning centred around the girl identifying the camouflage colour of the boxer shorts Kirkland was allegedly wearing at the time of the supposed incident.

The defendant admitted he may have a pair of camouflage pants, but could not recall if he was wearing them when he claims he changed the girl’s sheets.

The trial continues at Reading Crown Court on Thursday, February 3.