Sex Offenders Register

  morddwyd 09:58 30 Dec 2011

A man has been placed on the Sex Offenders Register for having sex in a public park.

While this is undoubtedly a public decency and public order offence, is it really a justification for placing him on the sex offenders register?

This was consensual sex between two adults, and the guy should surely not be labelled a sex offender, in the sense that most of us would understand the term, for an act which is not exactly uncommon.

I cannot be the only one on this forum, or in the wider community, who could have faced similar charges if a policeman had happened past at the wrong time.

  sunnystaines 10:03 30 Dec 2011

i agree too

  Quickbeam 10:24 30 Dec 2011

I agree too, it's an over reaction and mis-use of the act.

If this action was taken in every case of Saturday night back alley sex, over 90% of the population would soon have a sex offenders conviction, then the conviction would carry no weight in public opinion or carry no sway with employers, and then the purpose of the conviction would become meaningless and the act obsolete.

  johndrew 10:26 30 Dec 2011

Whether Scottish law differs from that used in other parts of the Union I am uncertain, but this case sounds muck like an abuse of the Act.

As I understand it, the Act was designed to protect children from abuse rather than be used simply as one for public decency. Such action can only lead to the value of the register being 'watered down'.

Further, if the man was guilty then so was the woman; why was she no put on the register also. It sounds as if the female Deputy fiscal (Carol Whyte) may be guilty of sexism.

  bremner 10:41 30 Dec 2011

The relevant legislation states you can be put on the register for Public Indecency where

"the court determines that there was a significant sexual aspect to the offender's behaviour in committing the offence"

Engaging in sexual intercourse on a park bench at 4pm on a Tuesday when kids are likely to be around are surely aggravating factors. I do not think many on this forum are likely to have performed at such a time in such a place ;o)

  bremner 10:45 30 Dec 2011

Jumping to conclusions without the facts is always hazardous

More complete report

He pleaded guilty she pleaded not guilty and awaits trial

  morddwyd 11:08 30 Dec 2011

"I had to look twice because I just couldn't believe what they were doing."

Most people, had they been offended, would have looked away, and then perhaps called the police.

I still don't see that placing on the list is justified.

  bremner 11:12 30 Dec 2011


Until full sentencing we do not know if this man has a previous history of public indecency or sexual related offending, something that would of course affect the judges decision.

  OTT_B 12:58 30 Dec 2011


I can't see how that is relevant? Either the offence he has just been convicted of justifies being on the sex offenders register, or it doesn't. Previous convictions are surely irrelevant?

  bremner 13:07 30 Dec 2011

As I said at 10.41 the judge has discretion with the offence of public indecency.

  bremner 13:07 30 Dec 2011

As I said at 10.41 the judge has discretion with the offence of public indecency.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

FIFA 19 review

How the brilliant, moving Oscar-nominated film The Breadwinner was visually brought to life

iPhone XS vs iPhone X: What is the difference?

Pixel 3 : date de sortie, prix et autres rumeurs