A KILBIRNIE man will find out his fate next month after he admitted to posting a sexual picture of a woman on Facebook.

Adam Thomas Mark Sutherland, 24, of School Road, appeared at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court last week where the court heard he had met the female victim about two months before the incident after they began contact through Facebook and Snapchat.

The Procurator Fiscal depute said that on May 10, 2015, Sutherland had sent a fully naked picture to the woman and in return she sent a picture of her privates, both via Snapchat.

The victim received a notification to say that the photograph had been screenshot by Sutherland.

Around two weeks later the woman got a notification from Facebook to say that she had been tagged in a post by Sutherland and it was available to anyone on her or his friends list to see.

She clicked on the image and saw that it was the naked image previously saved and she reported it to Facebook immediately. It was removed around three hours later.

Police were contacted but prior to this Sutherland had sent the victim messages asking her to refrain from contacting the police.

He was cautioned and charged and replied at the time saying: “I’ve nothing else to say other than what I told you.”

He made full admissions during interview and was noted by police to remorseful.

Crawford, defending, accepted the narration of events by the Crown but disputed the sexual element to the charge and tried to persuade Sheriff Livingston from placing her client on the Sex Offender’s Register.

She argued that alcohol was the motivating factor in the crime and not a sexual urge.

The case was then dismissed to recall at the end of business to discuss the sexual element and when it was called back up again Sheriff Livingston was keen to hear further what Sutherland had said in interview.

The fiscal depute said that it could only have been him that posted the photograph because of a passcode and finger print lock on his mobile phone.

Crawford then passed the Sheriff a transcript of the interview to which he said: “I don’t remember doing it, I was drunk, it must have been me’, is that your client’s position?”

Crawford accepted this before going on to further state that there was no sexual element because her client was with a friend at the time and there was no mention of the victim, she said it was a ‘drunken mistake’.

Sheriff Livingston disputed this and said: “It was a private picture sent and exposed on a public network. All her friends could see it, and depending on settings a lot more people could have seen it.”

The Fiscal’s position was that there was a significant sexual element.

The depute said: “It was an intimate photo, sent privately and posted in the most public way possible.”

Sheriff Livingston backed up the fiscal by saying that if the victim had sent him a picture of his arm, he wouldn’t have posted that.

Crawford said: “This is not a case where there is underlying deviancy and the public don’t need protected.”

Sheriff Livingston ultimately took the decision that he had no choice but to place Sutherland on the Sex Offender’s Register.

He said: “Posting for a large sector of the public seems to me to be perverted. There was a significant sexual element, and as well as a report you are looking at a finite period of supervision.

“A drunken jape but it breaches the Sexual Offences Act.”

Sentence was deferred until February 29 for a Criminal Justice Social Work Report and Sutherland was placed on the Sex Offender’s Register in the interim period.

How long he will be on it will be determined at sentencing next month.