Ayrshire campus cop denies sexual behaviour towards pupil

John Stewart faces a charge of engaging in sexual activity directed to, the girl, then aged 16, when he was employed as a campus police officer between April 1 and September 29 last year.

The 41-year-old, whose address is listed as Police Scotland’s professional standards department in French Street, Glasgow, pleaded not guilty to the allegation. 

The charge claims he repeatedly had ‘play-fights’ with the girl and alleges that he seized her by the neck and body at a secondary school in South Ayrshire.

The Crown’s complaint also alleges Mr Stewart repeatedly uttered sexualised comments towards the girl and claims that he repeatedly touched her on her buttocks.  

The charge accuses him of repeatedly having ‘play-fights’ with the girl, and claims that he seized her by the neck and body at a secondary school in South Ayrshire. 

The court heard he also discussed his ‘body count’ referring to how many people he had sex with, to girls at the school.

Mr Stewart’s trial was told the girl, who was 16 at the time, later complained to depute head teachers; the officer left the school later that day.

She told the trial at Ayr Sheriff Court she felt “really uncomfortable” after the comments. The court was played a Snapchat video she recorded of herself when the officer asked if she had 'fell out with' him as she felt “unsafe”.  

During a recorded police interview, she said: “He was well nice at first. If skipping class we would go sit with him. 

“PC Stewart was very flirty towards me. 

“I remember talking about his girlfriend. Someone asked ‘what about [Girl 1]?’ and said ‘not until she’s 18’.” 

Describing another occasion, she said: “I was in his office joking about, I said “Oh, f*** me man” [while using her phone].

"He said ‘not yet’. 

“I was just lying down on the couch and he jiggled my bum, touched my bum. That made me feel uncomfortable. 

“Girls trusted him. I spoke to him about personal stuff.  

“When he said ‘not yet’ I just went quiet and played with a pen and left. I didn’t go back. It opened my eyes.” 

“I just felt so uneasy and didn’t want to walk about the school.

“At the time I didn’t think it was anything but a joke but now I feel disgusted, uncomfortable, unhappy.” 

Giving evidence in the stand, the complainer said: “He came out his office and asked why I was not speaking to him. I just wanted to be left alone. He said ‘as long as you’ve not fallen out with me’.  

Asked why she recorded the video, she said: “I felt unsafe. I wanted to at least have something, it was only me and him in the corridor.” 

A second former school girl described witnessing the incident of touching her buttocks with his foot 

She said: “I remember we were always making jokes that ‘PC Stewart’s your boyfriend’. 

“Everyone loved him. He was always chatting and never gave you into trouble.” 

Two deputy head teachers gave evidence after complaints were raised to the secondary school. 

One said: “[Girl 1] was sitting on the stool and very tearful. I could see she was upset and said what’s the matter 

“She seemed very anxious hesitant and reluctant to speak. I said I was happy to listen, but reminded her if she shared any information, it may have to be passed on for child protection procedures. 

“She said ‘it’s about a member of staff and I don’t want to get him into trouble’. 

“She felt the behaviour had been inappropriate towards her and used the words ‘creepy’.

“I had known her a number of years and could tell she was anxious. She was quite emotional”.

A second deputy head said she didn’t think pupils should have been in Mr Stewart’s office when they should be in class.

She said: "The purpose of being in school is to be in class. They were in the room when I was expecting them to be in class.

"I can't recall reactions of the young people but certainly when I came back they had all left."

She told the defence she never noticed any "untoward" behaviour to pupils.

Giving evidence in his defence, Mr Stewart told defence solicitor Pamela Rodgers his role was “more about building relationships between the school and the police, than the usual going in and arresting people”.  

“Group/s would come to me on an almost daily basis. You would build up relationships over the years and treat them more like adults.”

Asked if there had been any discussions about sex he said “a couple of times yes”. 

Asked if discussions were "appropriate" he said “In hindsight, no.” 

“I intended to get across the legal side of things,” he added. “Campus police officers have to explain the law a lot. 

“Had I been a guidance teacher or any kind of teacher I would have known what to say. It did not come from any bad place. 

Asked if he remembered incident of touching her hip with his hand he said: “I don’t know.”

On being told of the complaint to the school, he said: “I was devastated. Absolutely crushed. It was a horrible feeling.

“I tried to keep myself composed thanked her [the depute head] that I had been made aware. 

“I gathered my belongings, left, and contacted the sergeant and attended to speak to her.   

Asked by the procurator fiscal depute if it was “a jokey office environment”, he said: “Yes, it could be.” 

When it was put to him that he had ‘added’ talking about age of consent ‘to justify’ his comments, he said “Absolutely not.” 

Asked why he touched the complainer’s bottom using his foot, he said: “It was a subconscious decision. Anywhere else may have hurt her.”

Two other girls from the same group denied feeling uncomfortable in Constable Stewart’s presence and disagreed that he had been “flirty”.

One said: “I don’t think he was making an inappropriate comment. 

“I was so shocked things could be completely twisted like that.” 

Another female pupil said: “She [Girl 1] always used to talk about how she fancied him, but he never reciprocated. 

“No matter what I will always have a lot of respect for him". 

Proceedings were adjourned on Thursday, with the defence expecting to call a further defence witness. 

The trial, before Sheriff Maria Kicinski, will continue at a later date.

All accused persons identified in the Ayr Advertiser are not guilty of any crimes unless or until they plead guilty, or are found guilty, at a later date.