CALLUM LIVINGSTON ESCAPES SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AFTER INCIDENT IN ABERDEEN

A recent case in Aberdeen has brought attention to the judicial decision regarding Callum Livingston, who faced charges related to public indecency. Livingston appeared before Aberdeen Sheriff Court after admitting to an incident that took place in the early hours of February 3, specifically around 3:45 am on Langstane Place. The incident involved Livingston exposing himself in a public area, which prompted immediate police intervention.

According to police reports, two officers on duty observed Livingston in a doorway accompanied by a woman. The officers later found him still in the same location, engaged in a kiss with her. During their investigation, the officers also witnessed Livingston performing a sexual act on himself. Livingston defended his actions by claiming that no one else was aware of what he was doing because he was facing a window, and therefore, his conduct was not visible to the public. He maintained that his actions were not intended to be seen or to gain sexual gratification in a public setting.

His legal representative explained that Livingston had been heavily intoxicated at the time and was in the company of a young woman. The sheriff, in her remarks, acknowledged that typically, offences of this nature—public indecency involving exposure and sexual acts—would usually result in a mandatory five-year notification on the sex offenders register. However, she considered that such a measure would be disproportionate in Livingston’s case. The sheriff emphasized that Livingston’s actions did not appear to be motivated by a desire for public sexual gratification and that this was his first appearance in court.

She further noted that the incident involved two consenting adults, even though it occurred in a public place, and ultimately decided against imposing the sex offender notification requirement. The sheriff described the case as being 'by the skin of his teeth,' indicating how narrowly she avoided such a measure. Instead, Livingston was fined £400 as a penalty for his conduct.

Overall, the court’s decision reflects a nuanced approach, considering the circumstances and Livingston’s lack of prior convictions, while also addressing the seriousness of public indecency offenses.