EDINBURGH MAN STEVEN HARPER'S SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION UPHELD AFTER APPEAL
| Red Rose Database
Edinburgh Sexual Abuser
A man named Steven Harper, who was previously accused of touching a woman's bottom during a social gathering in Edinburgh on Christmas Eve, has had his case reconsidered by the Court of Appeal. Initially, Harper was convicted of assault at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in December 2022, but the charges specifically referencing 'sexual assault' were later removed from the official record.
In a significant legal development, the Sheriff Appeal Court in Edinburgh overturned the original verdict and reinstated Harper’s conviction for sexual assault. The case centered around an incident where the woman, after going to the bar to purchase a drink, felt a hand touch her bottom. The defense argued that Harper believed the woman was someone he knew and that his actions were intended as a practical joke, not as an act of sexual violence.
During the trial, the sheriff accepted that Harper’s level of intoxication could be considered when evaluating his actions. Harper was charged under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act and was initially fined £300. However, the sheriff had removed the references to sexual assault from the final charge, seemingly accepting the defense’s argument that the act was a drunken prank.
Nevertheless, the appeal court judges disagreed with this interpretation. They emphasized that Harper’s intent to play a joke was irrelevant to the legal assessment of the act itself. The judges clarified that committing a sexual act, such as touching someone’s bottom, cannot be justified or excused simply because it was done as a joke. Sheriff Principal Wade, in his judgment, stated that the sheriff had erred by giving too much weight to Harper’s motive and not enough to the victim’s sexual autonomy.
He further explained that alcohol intoxication does not negate the criminality of such conduct. The court concluded that Harper’s actions constituted sexual assault regardless of his intentions or state of intoxication. As a result, Harper’s conviction for sexual assault was reinstated, and he will now be required to register as a sex offender for a period of five years.
This case highlights the importance of understanding that sexual misconduct cannot be dismissed as a joke or misjudgment, especially when it involves non-consensual contact, regardless of the perpetrator’s intoxication or intent.
In a significant legal development, the Sheriff Appeal Court in Edinburgh overturned the original verdict and reinstated Harper’s conviction for sexual assault. The case centered around an incident where the woman, after going to the bar to purchase a drink, felt a hand touch her bottom. The defense argued that Harper believed the woman was someone he knew and that his actions were intended as a practical joke, not as an act of sexual violence.
During the trial, the sheriff accepted that Harper’s level of intoxication could be considered when evaluating his actions. Harper was charged under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act and was initially fined £300. However, the sheriff had removed the references to sexual assault from the final charge, seemingly accepting the defense’s argument that the act was a drunken prank.
Nevertheless, the appeal court judges disagreed with this interpretation. They emphasized that Harper’s intent to play a joke was irrelevant to the legal assessment of the act itself. The judges clarified that committing a sexual act, such as touching someone’s bottom, cannot be justified or excused simply because it was done as a joke. Sheriff Principal Wade, in his judgment, stated that the sheriff had erred by giving too much weight to Harper’s motive and not enough to the victim’s sexual autonomy.
He further explained that alcohol intoxication does not negate the criminality of such conduct. The court concluded that Harper’s actions constituted sexual assault regardless of his intentions or state of intoxication. As a result, Harper’s conviction for sexual assault was reinstated, and he will now be required to register as a sex offender for a period of five years.
This case highlights the importance of understanding that sexual misconduct cannot be dismissed as a joke or misjudgment, especially when it involves non-consensual contact, regardless of the perpetrator’s intoxication or intent.