John Leslie cleared of sexually assaulting bride-to-be on her hen night [Details]

John Leslie has been found not guilty of sexually assaulting a bride-to-be on her hen night in June 2017.

The former Scottish TV presenter, 53, was accused of putting his hands down the woman’s trousers and touching her bare bottom at an Edinburgh nightclub Atik.

Appearing under his real name, John Stott, he had denied the charge, which was found not proven on Friday after a two-day trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

Leslie told the told the court he had acted like a perfect gentleman.

He described dancing with the woman and said he wished her well when the song finished.

“I did not put my hands down her trousers. It’s something I would never do. It’s something I would never have done. I’m upset at the allegation,” he said.

Nightclub DJ and friend of Leslie, Nicholas Mowat, 50, also gave evidence, and told the court he saw the former Blue Peter presenter dancing ballroom-style with the woman.

“John was just pirouetting. John had his hands on the back of the bride and he was a perfect gentleman, dancing around the dance floor as normal.

“I didn’t see any signs of her being distressed with him or being anxious to get away from him in any way.”

Mowat also told how he had a good view of the dancefloor from his DJ booth.

“I wasn’t 100% on them but I would have noticed if there was some problem or if I needed to call a door steward over which I never saw at at all.”

The court also heard from one of the bride-to-be’s friends who said the way she danced with Leslie looked ‘innapropriate.”

“They were dancing and I could see he had his hand on her lower back which I felt was inappropriate, I would have felt uncomfortable if it was me.

“The next time I looked up I couldn’t see his hand any more. I could only see the top of his wrist. It was at the top of her tutu.

“At this point she looked scared,” she claimed.

Following a two day trial, Sheriff Adam Cottam found Leslie not proven and told him he was free to leave.

The sheriff said it had been a ‘difficult decision’ as the evidence from the complainant ‘on its own appears to be a credible and reliable account.’ He said taking the case as a whole, the evidence from the defence ‘adds up to a combination of factors’ that caused reasonable doubt.