Sheriff Appeal Court removes racial abuser from sex offenders’ register after finding no sexual motivation to offence

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] SAC (Crim) 4
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Appeal Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar

Muhammad Aslam and Iain Laing were each made subject to notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 after a determination that there was a significant sexual aspect to the offences of which they were convicted. The first complainer contended that there had been no sexual aspect to his offence, which was motivated by racism, while the second argued that the sexual element of his offence was not significant.

The bills were considered by Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar KC with Appeal Sheriffs David Young KC and Stuart Reid. Paterson KC, solicitor advocate, appeared for the complainers and Keenan KC, advocate depute, for the Crown.

Invasion of privacy

Mr Aslam, the first complainer, was a man of Pakistani heritage. On 15 July 2023, he approached an 11-year-old boy, DK, in a public park, believing him to be of Indian heritage. He proceeded to make disparaging comments about Indians to him, asked him whether “he washed his bum”, asked to see if it was clean, and then followed him when he walked towards his mother, BK, and asked her whether her husband “fucked her at the back” and “do you want me to show you?”.

The second complainer, Mr Laing, pled guilty in January 2025 to a contravention of section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. He had been house-sitting for a puppy at the request of an acquaintance of his, and a motion sensor camera in the property caught him entering the bedroom of a 13-year-old girl, A, three times, removing her underwear from a basket and using it for the purpose of masturbation whilst in the property.

In respect of the first complainer, the sheriff concluded that his behaviour was indicative of an underlying sexual disorder or deviance and certified that there was a significant sexual aspect to the offence. The summary sheriff sentencing the second complainer had sight of a psychologist’s report opining that he had a long-standing fetish for female underwear spanning over 40 years and he did not pose a wider threat to the public. However, considering the invasion of privacy aspect of the offending, he determined that there had been a significant sexual aspect and that the second complainer posed a risk to the public.

For the first complainer it was submitted that, while his comments were disgusting, they were motivated by racism rather than sexual deviancy and his motivation was to insult and offend on that basis. In respect of the second complainer, the author of the report explained that the attraction to the underwear was based on the object, not the wearer, and this was an important distinction.

Designed to humiliate

Delivering the opinion of the court, Sheriff Principal Anwar said of Mr Aslam’s offending: “Examining the complainer’s conduct in light of the purpose and effect of registration, it cannot in our view be said that his behaviour had a significant sexual aspect. His conduct was deeply offensive, racist, disturbing, persistent, involved a child and caused MK and BK to suffer fear and alarm. It was designed to insult, humiliate and embarrass them. It was criminal conduct for which he has received a sentence which punishes him and addresses his offending behaviour.”

She continued: “His behaviour was primarily motivated by a desire to offend those the complainer understood to be of Indian heritage. There was a sexual aspect to his behaviour in terms of the offensive language he used. However, that aspect was not ‘significant’ in the sense that it did not appear to be motivated by any sexual urges, nor indicative of an underlying sexual deviance or disorder. In essence, this offence was racist, not sexual, in nature. It could not, in our view, be concluded that the complainer was a person who constituted a continuing sexual danger to others, such that registration was necessary to protect the public from that perceived risk.”

The court therefore quashed passed the first complainer’s bill and recalled the certification and notices issued by the sheriff.

Clandestine misappropriation

Turning to Mr Laing’s bill, Sheriff Principal Anwar noted: “The sheriff was correct to attach limited weight to the references in the criminal justice social work report and the psychologist’s report which referred to the second complainer as ‘having a long standing fetish’, to the psychologist’s assessment that the second complainer did not suffer from a ‘disorder’, and to his opinion that the second complainer posed no danger to the broader public. These were matters upon which the sheriff was able to form a view having regard to the terms of the conviction and the Crown narrative.”

She concluded: “The clandestine misappropriation of a child’s underwear is not materially different to the clandestine appropriation of images of children or to the offence of voyeurism in terms of section 9 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, conviction for which leads to automatic registration. The complainer took advantage of the opportunity presented by having access to a child’s bedroom. His behaviour was thereafter planned and premeditated when he returned on two further occasions. Having regard to the clear sexual nature of his behaviour, the sheriff had been correct to conclude the second complainer was a person who constituted a continuing sexual danger to others, from which society was entitled to be protected.”

The bill presented by the second complainer was therefore refused.