Man cleared of post­ing naked photo of his wife

De­fence so­lic­i­tor’ s ‘no case to an­swer’ sub­mis­sion is up­held

The Press and Journal (Inverness) - - FRONT PAGE -

An In­ver­ness man has been ac­quit­ted of post­ing an ex­plicit pic­ture of his ex-wife af­ter a row in­volv­ing a pet par­rot.

David Robert­son had de­nied the charges. His trial started last week at In­ver­ness Sher­iff Court, where Mrs Robert­son gave ev­i­dence.

An In­ver­ness man has been ac­quit­ted of post­ing an ex­plicit pic­ture of his ex-wife af­ter a row in­volv­ing a pet par­rot.

David Robert­son had de­nied send­ing so­cial me­dia con­tent and mak­ing phone calls of an of­fen­sive, grossly in­de­cent or of a men­ac­ing na­ture.

He also de­nied post­ing pho­to­graphs of wife Mairita naked, par­tially clothed and in her un­der­wear on so­cial me­dia, and threat­en­ing to pub­licly dis­trib­ute sim­i­lar pho­to­graphs of her in Fe­bru­ary.

His trial started last week at In­ver­ness Sher­iff Court, where Mrs Robert­son gave ev­i­dence.

Yes­ter­day, the court heard that the gram­mar in the charge against David Robert­son, of Telford Road, was “de­fec­tive”.

Sher­iff Mar­garet Neil­son was also told that she should ig­nore ear­lier ev­i­dence that the im­ages of Mrs Robert­son were al­legedly found on Mr Robert­son’s phone.

It was ex­plained to her that it was be­cause a de­tec­tive sergeant had failed to warn the ac­cused that he didn’t have to hand over his phone for anal­y­sis.

There was also some con­fu­sion over the date on which Mrs Robert­son’s phone was ex­am­ined.

At the end of prose­cu­tion ev­i­dence yes­ter­day, de­fence so­lic­i­tor John MacColl suc­cess­fully put for­ward a “no case to an­swer” plea due to a lack of cor­rob­o­ra­tion of crim­i­nal­ity against his client.

He said only Mrs Robert­son’s ev­i­dence spoke to a crime. Mr MacColl had also ar­gued against fis­cal de­pute Laura Ryan amend­ing the charge and the sec­tion of the Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Act un­der which Robert­son was charged.

At the end of the Crown case, Sher­iff Neil­son crit­i­cised Ms Ryan’s un­named col­league who had drawn up the charge, which she said was “de­fec­tive” and such in­ci­dents were be­com­ing in­creas­ingly com­mon.

She said that the trial could not be re-run from the start, re­fused Ms Ryan’s changes, then up­held Mr MacColl’s “no case to an­swer” sub­mis­sion and found Mr Robert­son not guilty.

Dur­ing the first day of the trial, the court was told that Mr Robert­son, 52, had split up with his 27-year-old wife late last year and the cou­ple had ac­ri­mo­nious talks over the re­turn of his pos­ses­sions, in­clud­ing his pet par­rot.

Mrs Robert­son told the court: “I went to check my mes­sages on What­sApp and I saw that Dave had changed his pro­file pic­ture. It was an ex­plicit one of my- self naked from the waist down.

“I knew it was me be­cause of a tat­too I have below my belly but­ton.”

PAR­ROT: David Robert­son rowed with his wife about the re­turn of his things in­clud­ing his pet bird

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.