A Fife joiner who secretly snapped a naked picture of a 15-year-old girl with a hidden camera has been told he deserved to be jailed.
Voyeur Blair Mackie was caught with a perverted picture on his tablet.
The covertly taken picture of the girl, standing naked in her bedroom, was uncovered by her mother.
Sheriff Elizabeth McFarlane rejected his claim he was not sexually motivated and told him his victim and her mother “no doubt” wanted him locked up and the key thrown away, adding, “you deserve that”.
However, given the length of the maximum sentence available to her, the sheriff decided punishment in the community would be more beneficial.
Mackie, a joiner who works on new-build houses, is now on the Sex Offenders Register and must not have contact with anyone under 16 unless he gains prior approval from the authorities.
Family blasts ‘delusional’ Mackie
Speaking after the sentencing, the girl’s mother explained she was receiving cancer treatment when she made the gut-wrenching discovery.
She explained Mackie’s victim stopped attending school and required anti-depressants and sleeping tablets.
“She wasn’t herself,” she said.
The girl’s mother said, while their custody wish was not delivered, they believe Mackie’s business will take a significant hit from the court-imposed conditions.
“I got upset because I was hoping he would get time.
“He’s obviously delusional, talking about… it not being sexually motivated.
“Who wakes up one day and puts a camera in a child’s bedroom?
“He’s definitely not wired up right.
“We’ve been waiting on this coming – it’s been a long two years.
“She used to be so happy and confident. She’s a completely different wee girl.”
Creep took illicit picture
49-year-old Mackie previously admitted that between May and November 2021, he covertly recorded a 15-year-old girl, naked, in her bedroom at a property in Fife with the intention that he or another would view it.
Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court heard the girl’s mother found the photo in the recently-deleted section of Mackie’s tablet’s camera roll.
The girl was completely unaware the image had been taken, from what appeared to be dressing unit.
Her mother confronted Mackie and asked him to explain himself.
He denied being responsible and told her: “Don’t do anything rash.”
‘Unbelievable behaviour’
The sheriff said: “Mr Mackie, you might appreciate that these are the cases that sheriffs find most difficult to deal with because we have to comprehend unbelievable behaviour, and try to satisfy all the factors that we have to take into account.
“I have no doubt that the complainer and the complainer’s mother, would like me to send you to prison today and throw away the key – you deserve that – because I have no idea how you would begin to actually comprehend this.
“You betrayed trust terribly and I have no idea why.
“You say it wasn’t sexual motivation but I don’t believe that.
“I could send you to prison today (but) I would have to discount it – you would ultimately serve five months in prison.
“I don’t think that’s going to be of benefit to anyone.
“I’m going to make sure that there’s no contact between you and the complainer for some years.”
Sheriff McFarlane imposed a one-year supervision order and made him subject to registration requirements for as long.
For the order’s duration, Mackie must only stay at approved accommodation, have no unauthorised contact with under-16s and must declare any friendships or relationships to social workers.
The sheriff imposed a four-month restriction of liberty order, keeping him in his home at Balbirnie Avenue in Markinch between 7pm and 7am each night.
She also made non-harassment orders to protect the girl and her mother from any contact for three years.
Mitigation
Mackie’s solicitor Aaron Thomson said his client has previous road traffic convictions and “experience of custody.”
“Mr Mackie has displayed a significant level of remorse.
“He recognises that his actions were wrong.
“He regrets his actions and he understands this was a significant invasion of the privacy of the complainer.
“He fully recognises he abused his position of trust.
“He clearly recognises the impact his behaviour has had.”
Mr Thomson said his client’s motivation was curiosity, not sexual gratification.
“He accepts, of course, it can be inferred that his curiosity related to a sexual motivation and there can be little to no other explanation for his actions.
“Ultimately, he is struggling to comprehend his behaviour at the time.”
For more local court content visit our dedicated page or join us on Facebook.