PC Dickson admitted four allegations of gross misconduct.

The panel said he had “caused real harm and damage to the police service and public confidence” and ruled he should be dismissed immediately.

It heard PC Dickson attended a domestic violence incident in October 2019 during which the abuser, who had a knife, poured mayonnaise and a fizzy drink over the victim’s head and took a picture of the mess in her hair.

The panel was told PC Dickson copied this picture, to use as evidence, but then took a photograph of it which he kept on his personal mobile phone.

On three occasions PC Dickson sent the image to “amuse” a family member with comments such as “Head full of mayo!” and “I’ll get this done to you ya muppet xxx.

In a statement to the hearing, the victim said she felt she had been made a fool of and was “disgusted and disappointed” in his behaviour.

PC Dickson apologised and accepted he had given little thought to how his actions might affect her.

The panel said PC Dickson’s actions caused her “immediate harm” and could make it “harder for victims of domestic violence to come forward if they think there is any chance that officers might wrongly share sensitive photographs taken as evidence”.

PC Dickson was also found to have kept photographs of decomposing dead bodies on his personal phone.

In June 2019 he asked for pictures another officer had taken of a dead man and, at a similar incident in July that year, took two photographs himself.

In December, he took pictures of a third dead man, for work purposes, but copied them onto his personal phone.

In his formal response to the hearing, PC Dickson said he had never seen a decomposing body and had asked for the first pictures out of curiosity so that he might better cope in the future.

He had taken the other images, and shared them with a colleague, to help deal with the stress, he said.

The panel accepted PC Dickson had “significant personal problems” but said it could not see how keeping photographs would help him cope, and concluded his actions stemmed from “morbid curiosity”.

He had “developed a casual disregard towards the confidentiality of sensitive photographs and the privacy of others”, it said.

It ruled his misconduct was “extremely serious” and dismissal was the “only proportionate response”.