JOSH BIRNIE FROM MASTRICK SENTENCED IN ABERDEEN FOR MOBILE PHONE VIOLATION AND SEX OFFENSES
| Red Rose Database
Mastrick Child Sexual Abuser
In June 2013, Josh Birnie, a 22-year-old resident of Mastrick, found himself back in the spotlight following a series of legal issues related to his previous criminal conduct and subsequent violations of court orders. Birnie, who had previously been convicted of sexual offenses involving a child, was sentenced to serve eight months in prison after he was caught using a mobile phone in defiance of a court-imposed restriction.
The sexual offences prevention order issued against Birnie last July explicitly prohibited him from using any mobile phones. Despite this, between February 21 and March 1 of the same year, Birnie was found to have used his brother’s phone to make calls and access the internet. This breach of the court order led to his immediate detention, with the sentencing taking place at Aberdeen Sheriff Court.
During the hearing, Birnie’s defense attorney, Chris Maitland, highlighted the importance of mobile phone use in Birnie’s family circumstances, suggesting that the device was critical for maintaining contact with his family members. Nonetheless, Sheriff Graeme Napier emphasized the seriousness of the violation, stating that it was unacceptable for Birnie not to have notified the police about his phone use. The sheriff pointed out that Birnie could have used a public telephone instead of breaching the order.
Birnie, who is currently held at Craiginches Prison, had previously been involved in a program for sex offenders. Last year, he was placed on the joint sex offenders program as an alternative to immediate imprisonment after admitting to sexual activity with a child in 2011. His criminal history also includes a conviction from January 2011, when he was sentenced to 18 months’ detention for a sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl. The incident, which took place on March 17, 2009, also resulted in Birnie’s name being added to the sex offenders register.
Birnie’s legal troubles extend beyond the breach of the court order. He has also been involved in a separate case concerning allegations of abduction and sexual assault. In January of the previous year, he was convicted at Aberdeen Sheriff Court of abducting a schoolgirl and sexually assaulting her. The victim was only 14 years old, and the assault occurred on March 17, 2009. Birnie denied the charges, claiming he did not abduct or assault the girl, and maintained that he was not holding her against her will at his residence in Arnage Place, Mastrick. Despite his denial, he was sentenced to 18 months’ detention and was required to register as a sex offender.
In addition to the conviction, Birnie admitted to sending indecent and obscene text messages to a 13-year-old girl in June 2009. His appeal against the conviction was filed in November of the previous year, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for a guilty verdict. The appeal was based on the legal principle established in the Peter Cadder case, which ruled that confessions or statements obtained without legal counsel could violate a defendant’s rights. The court noted that Birnie’s statements were made without a lawyer present, which could have compromised the fairness of his trial. The Crown argued that Birnie had waived his right to legal assistance, but the court, referencing the Cadder ruling, held that a youth cannot waive such rights without first having the opportunity to consult with legal counsel.
Ultimately, the court found merit in Birnie’s appeal, concluding that his case had been unfairly tried due to the absence of legal representation during police interviews. A full appeal hearing has been scheduled to further examine the case, and Birnie’s legal team is expected to challenge the convictions based on these grounds. The ongoing legal proceedings highlight the complex and serious nature of Birnie’s criminal history and the importance of adhering to court orders designed to protect the public from individuals with a history of sexual offenses.
The sexual offences prevention order issued against Birnie last July explicitly prohibited him from using any mobile phones. Despite this, between February 21 and March 1 of the same year, Birnie was found to have used his brother’s phone to make calls and access the internet. This breach of the court order led to his immediate detention, with the sentencing taking place at Aberdeen Sheriff Court.
During the hearing, Birnie’s defense attorney, Chris Maitland, highlighted the importance of mobile phone use in Birnie’s family circumstances, suggesting that the device was critical for maintaining contact with his family members. Nonetheless, Sheriff Graeme Napier emphasized the seriousness of the violation, stating that it was unacceptable for Birnie not to have notified the police about his phone use. The sheriff pointed out that Birnie could have used a public telephone instead of breaching the order.
Birnie, who is currently held at Craiginches Prison, had previously been involved in a program for sex offenders. Last year, he was placed on the joint sex offenders program as an alternative to immediate imprisonment after admitting to sexual activity with a child in 2011. His criminal history also includes a conviction from January 2011, when he was sentenced to 18 months’ detention for a sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl. The incident, which took place on March 17, 2009, also resulted in Birnie’s name being added to the sex offenders register.
Birnie’s legal troubles extend beyond the breach of the court order. He has also been involved in a separate case concerning allegations of abduction and sexual assault. In January of the previous year, he was convicted at Aberdeen Sheriff Court of abducting a schoolgirl and sexually assaulting her. The victim was only 14 years old, and the assault occurred on March 17, 2009. Birnie denied the charges, claiming he did not abduct or assault the girl, and maintained that he was not holding her against her will at his residence in Arnage Place, Mastrick. Despite his denial, he was sentenced to 18 months’ detention and was required to register as a sex offender.
In addition to the conviction, Birnie admitted to sending indecent and obscene text messages to a 13-year-old girl in June 2009. His appeal against the conviction was filed in November of the previous year, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for a guilty verdict. The appeal was based on the legal principle established in the Peter Cadder case, which ruled that confessions or statements obtained without legal counsel could violate a defendant’s rights. The court noted that Birnie’s statements were made without a lawyer present, which could have compromised the fairness of his trial. The Crown argued that Birnie had waived his right to legal assistance, but the court, referencing the Cadder ruling, held that a youth cannot waive such rights without first having the opportunity to consult with legal counsel.
Ultimately, the court found merit in Birnie’s appeal, concluding that his case had been unfairly tried due to the absence of legal representation during police interviews. A full appeal hearing has been scheduled to further examine the case, and Birnie’s legal team is expected to challenge the convictions based on these grounds. The ongoing legal proceedings highlight the complex and serious nature of Birnie’s criminal history and the importance of adhering to court orders designed to protect the public from individuals with a history of sexual offenses.