DAVID STEWART FROM PERTHSHIRE CAUGHT IN SEX VIDEO SCANDAL

A farm worker named David Stewart, aged 30, hailing from Perthshire, has been implicated in a serious case involving the non-consensual sharing of an explicit sex video. The incident revolves around a video that depicted a woman performing a sexual act, which Stewart recorded on his mobile phone several years ago. The case came to light when Stewart was found to have lied about deleting the video when questioned by authorities. Investigations revealed that Stewart had sent the explicit footage to a woman with whom he was engaged in an online relationship, at her request. This woman, whose identity cannot be disclosed due to legal restrictions, later confirmed through messages that Stewart was obligated to delete all images of her, a promise he had agreed to uphold.

Stewart’s involvement was further uncovered after his image appeared on the online platform 'Are We Dating The Same Guy?', which led to his arrest. The police subsequently brought him in for questioning, and he cooperated fully with their investigation. During the court proceedings, Stewart admitted to the offence of disclosing a sex video of another person without their consent, on 27 March 2024. The court was informed that the woman was dressed only in her underwear at the time of the recording, which lasted approximately one minute and thirty seconds. The video was sent to her the day after it was recorded, intensifying the breach of trust and privacy.

Following the incident, the woman contacted the police, prompting Stewart’s arrest. His solicitor explained that the relationship between Stewart and the woman was limited to online correspondence, and that Stewart had sent her the video solely at her request. The solicitor described Stewart’s actions as reckless, emphasizing that there was no malicious intent but rather a lapse in judgment.

In sentencing, the Sheriff imposed a fine of £675, citing the unusual circumstances surrounding the case. The Sheriff also highlighted that Stewart’s actions were foolish and reckless, but made it clear that Stewart has no intention of repeating such behaviour in the future. The court’s decision reflects a recognition of the seriousness of the offence, balanced against Stewart’s cooperation and the context of the incident.