Bhupinder Singh, a takeaway manager from Kilmarnock, was given 150 hours of unpaid work following a conviction for sexually assaulting a 17 year old employee.
The accused argued that the sheriff should not have repelled a no case to answer submission and also that the reason evidence accepted by the sheriff was not explained fully.
The complainer worked for Mr Singh. On the 15th February 2021, the complainer left work early following an encounter with the accused girlfriend. The accused girlfriend had aimed threats at the complainer.
Mr Singh contacted the complainer and asked her to return later that evening. When she arrived, she was asked to go through to the back of the shop with Mr Singh.
Later that same evening, the accused placed his hand on her inner thigh before moving it upwards, remaining above her leggings. The complainer stated this action was uninvited and that she was not comfortable.
2 days later, the complainer reported this conduct to the police. Upon hearing the complaint, the police seized the leggings that she was wearing that evening. DNA belonging to the accused from the leggings was obtained.
The accused case presented that there was a lack of corroboration and therefore a no case to answer submission was made. They suggested that there was no corroboration of the conduct or any evidence that the complainer was wearing the leggings on the day of the incident.
The sheriff rejected this argument stating there was no need for corroboration relating to the leggings. They stated that the only matters which require corroboration are the sexual activity described in the charge and the complainer’s lack of consent.”
In dismissing the appeal, the sheriff stated that with regards any complaints about the gap between the assault and the disclosure to the police, they would be actively encouraging the dangerous ‘rape myths’ that society is trying to eradicate.
The sheriff stated he was ‘unimpressed’ with the case submitted by the appellant.
The appeal was refused.