A man who posted an explicit picture of a woman he had been "sexting" on his Facebook page has successfully appealed the sexual element of his sentence.

Appeal judges at the High Court noted that sharing intimate images was "relatively common feature of relationships between young people".

They said while this behaviour might not be "wise," those who engaged in it should not be subject to the "grave stigma"of sexual offences.

Adam Sutherland, 23, posted a sexually explicit picture of the woman online in May 2015.

They had met each other once two months previously and had been chatting using Snapchat.

After sending a naked image of himself to the 20-year-old, he received one in return and took a screenshot.

He posted the picture on his Facebook page around two weeks later and the woman was "shocked and alarmed" when she saw it had been shared.

Sutherland said he had been drunk at the time and had no memory of posting the image.

He admitted an offence under the 2003 Communications Act at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court, for which he was given unpaid work, but the sheriff also referred him under the Sexual Offences Act.

This legislation deals with sex offenders and required Sutherland to obey strict notification requirements.

He appealed the sexual element of the sentence, with solicitor Ann Ogg arguing his case in front of appeal judges.

She said his behaviour in posting the image had been motivated by drunkenness.

Ms Ogg argued "there was no sexual component to (Sutherland's) behaviour at all."

The Crown argued the sheriff's initial decision should not be overturned.

Advocate depute Alex Prentice QC told the judges: "(Sutherland) took the trouble to tag the image so that the complainer would be aware of its presence."

Presenting the judges ruling, Lord Turnbull said: "It is our impression, whether a wise practice or not (sexting) is now a relatively common feature of relationships between young people."

He continued: "Whilst it is difficult to accept that was no sexual content at all to his behaviour, given the nature of the image concerned, we can see no basis for the view that any sexual aspect which might have been present indicated an underlying sexual disorder or deviance and we conclude that the sheriff was wrong in arriving at the view which he did."

The judge noted Sutherland had been punished for the "upset" he had caused.

His conviction under the Communications Act was not under appeal.

Announcing their decision to quash the sheriff's ruling, Lord Turnbull said: "We are satisfied that any sexual element which there may have been cannot properly be described as 'significant'."