THREE men have won their fight to be taken off the sex offenders register.
A man who exposed himself, another who inappropriately grabbed a woman and one who kissed a teenager challenged their inclusion.
They were among a batch of cases considered by judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 a list of offences, such as rape, are specified, which results in a convicted offender being placed on the register.
However, with other crimes, such as breach of the peace, registration can also follow if a court decides there is "a significant sexual aspect".
The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, said the appeals raised a question over the application of the provisions for those offences not included on the specified list.
The senior judge said if prosecutors were going to argue there was a significant sexual aspect to such an offence then fair notice should be given in the terms of the charge.
Lord Gill said: "Registration as a sex offender is not a sentence. The purpose of registration is not punitive. It is protective.
"It enables the police to keep tabs on a sex offender who is, or who may be, a continuing danger to others, and particularly to women and young people.
"Although registration does not constitute a sentence, it is a grave stigma and one which, designedly, places onerous restrictions and requirements on the registered offender's life.
"In particular, the offender has the public status of sex offender. He is under a continuing obligation throughout the registration period to inform the police of his whereabouts and to notify them whenever he changes address."
The Lord Justice Clerk, sitting with Lord Bracadale and Lord Osborne, ruled in one of the successful appeals they would quash a decision by a sheriff to place Stuart Thomson on the sex offenders register.
Thomson, 24, of Glasgow, admitted assaulting a 25-year-woman by grabbing her while she was waiting for a taxi in Glasgow city centre on June 14, 2009.
The Crown adopted the position he committed an indecent assault but his lawyers said that, while it was drunken and offensive behaviour, he got no sexual gratification from it.
After a sheriff decided he should be subject to notification requirements he challenged the decision, claiming his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated as the Crown failed to give him fair notice it viewed it as an indecent assault. Lord Gill allowed the appeal.
In another case, James Heatherall, 23, won an appeal against his inclusion on the register for five years after exposing himself to a woman in the High Street, in Penicuik, Midlothian, on August 1, 2009.
The Crown accepted a guilty plea by Heatherall, of Loanhead, to a breach of the peace by his exposing himself to the 28-year-old, when he appeared at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
The woman was leaving a pub when she saw him and was embarrassed.
A sheriff heard he had been with friends and exposed himself as a joke.
He also challenged the decision to put him on the register, claiming there was no significant sexual aspect to the charge he admitted and that his human rights had been breached.
The appeal judges also overturned a decision to put Robert Young, 28, of Cornton Crescent, Bridge of Allan, Stirlingshire, on the sex offenders register for a year after he admitted assaulting a girl on a train between Polmont and Larbert by kissing her on the lips on April 10, 2009, when he appeared at Falkirk Sheriff Court.
Lord Gill said taking into account the nature and purpose of sex offenders registration he did not consider that the sexual aspect could be described as "significant".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article