Kyle Burden, a 23-year-old cyber-security graduate, has avoided a prison sentence after secretly filming schoolgirls and selling the videos online. He was placed on the sex offenders register for five years, ordered to undergo social work supervision, and must complete 300 hours of unpaid work. Sheriff Tim Niven-Smith stated that the community-based sentence would be more intensive than a short jail term.
Background of the Offences
On 31 March 2025, police executed a search warrant at Burden's home in Hillside, Montrose. His brother let officers in, and they seized an iPhone containing child abuse material, including rape videos of children aged two to 15, as well as videos Burden had filmed himself. The device also held over 100 files of covert recordings of high school-age females in public places like shops and supermarkets, focusing on their buttocks and groin areas. The girls were unaware they were being recorded.
Telegram Channels and Sales
Burden operated two Telegram channels. One broadcasted videos and images of girls aged 13 to 16, some taken from their social media pages and others from his covert recordings. The channel ran from 28 June 2023 to 9 April 2025 and had 90 attachments. The second channel served as a preview, showing similar content with prices and access instructions. Burden received payments from some users. His computer and iPad also contained child pornography and AI-generated images of girls aged 10 to 14, created between August 2019 and May 2025.
Court Proceedings and Sentencing
Fiscal depute Charmaine Gilmartin detailed the evidence at Dundee Sheriff Court. Defence agent Michael Stewart noted Burden was in full-time employment, though his status might change due to the conviction. Burden admitted downloading indecent images of children between 16 August 2019 and 22 May 2025, and behaving in a threatening or abusive manner by taking videos and photos of young girls in public without their knowledge between 28 June 2023 and 9 April 2025. He also admitted operating the Telegram channels with offensive sexualised captions and offering access for payment. The court described him as a 'child pornographer' exploiting unsuspecting children for financial gain.
