Outrage as dental student walks free after sexually assaulting young girl
Dumbarton Sheriff Court, Liam Kerr MSP, Nicola Sturgeon and Jackie Baillie MSP.
By Democrat reporter
MSP Jackie Baillie expressed outrage yesterday at the decision taken by a sheriff at Dumbarton Sheriff Court to grant an absolute discharge to a dental student who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a child over a period of years.
The Dumbarton and Lomond Labour member of the Holyrood parliament revealed that new figures have shown that as violent crime increases, rising numbers of people convicted of homicide and sexual assault did not face jail time.
The figures show that convictions of non-sexual crimes of violence, including homicide, attempted murder and serious assault, as well as robbery rose by five per cent between 2016/17 and 2017/18.
The largest increase is for homicide at 17 per cent. And 30 per cent of those convicted of homicide were not given custodial sentences, an increase of four per cent on 2016/17.
The figures also reveal that over half of those convicted of sexual assault – 52 per cent – did not receive a custodial sentence.
Ms Baillie said: “The fact that this is a trend which can be seen across the country will provide little confidence in the justice system.”
The figures have been revealed around the same time as news broke that a man was spared jail at Dumbarton Sheriff Court despite being found guilty of sexually assaulting a child over a period of years.
She added: “The Sheriff argued that a criminal record would have an adverse impact on his career in dentistry.”
The MSP said these most recent crime figures would come as a shock to many people across the country – “I support a rehabilitative approach to justice but a situation which sees convicted killers spared jail, simply isn’t right.
“These figures will be a source of distress to the victims and will break down trust in the system.
“People across Scotland are rightly outraged by the decision taken by the judge at Dumbarton Sheriff Court, so the fact that this is a trend which can be seen across the country will provide little confidence in the justice system.”
Crime reporter Russell Findlay reported for STV that the mother whose daughter was sexually assaulted reacted with anger after a sheriff’s reasons for giving the abuser an ‘absolute discharge’ were revealed.
Sheriff Gerard Sinclair found Christopher Daniel, 18, guilty of sexually assaulting a girl on numerous occasions when she was aged between six and eight.
But the “wholly exceptional” sentence means the teenage dental student will not have a criminal record and was not put on the sex offenders register.
Following a series of STV News reports, the Judicial Office for Scotland published a statement on Thursday detailing the sheriff’s reasons.
But the victim’s family are angry and confused by the reasons given – accusing the sheriff of making assumptions and getting facts wrong.
The statement said: “The sheriff considered the offence to be the result of an entirely inappropriate curiosity of an emotionally naive teenager rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification. I am absolutely gobsmacked by this. How can he possibly know this? It also seems to be at odds with the charge which was of sexual assault.”
The girl’s mother added: “I am absolutely gobsmacked by this. How can he possibly know this? It also seems to be at odds with the charge which was of sexual assault.
“He also says that my daughter appears not to have suffered any long-lasting effects. Again, how can he possibly know this? No-one has asked me at any point how my daughter is.”
Since Daniel’s trial at Dumbarton Sheriff Court last month, the family had been unable to obtain the sheriff’s reasons.
The release of the statement is highly unusual – but the Judicial Office for Scotland did not warn the victim’s family that it was happening.
The sheriff says his sentence was based on the attacker’s immaturity, social awkwardness and the fact his level of offending did not escalate.
He also placed importance on the damage that a conviction could do to Daniel’s career.
The statement read: “As to the circumstances of the offence, the sheriff considered that the actions, occurring on more than one occasion could not be classed as spontaneous. However, there had been no attempt to escalate the nature of the offending.
“In light of the evidence as to the immaturity of the accused, and the nature of the discussion during which he admitted his actions, the sheriff considered the offence to be the result of an entirely inappropriate curiosity of an emotionally naive teenager rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification.”
“The accused had appeared both noticeably immature and socially awkward, features confirmed by other evidence in the case.
“It was fortunate that the complainer appeared to have suffered no injury or long-lasting effects. Any sentence would mean that he would probably be unable to continue his university course.
“The sheriff also said he took the decision because the family held no ill will against Daniel and were not “seeking any form of retribution”.
The girl’s mother is dismayed. She said: “For them to release this without even telling us is appalling but so much of what is in the document is troubling.
“The sheriff says that we are not seeking retribution. We don’t want him locked up but I have always said he should be put on the sex offenders register. It’s almost suggesting that I chose this sentence. It should be up to the sheriff to do the right thing, which is to record it as a criminal conviction at the very least. This appears to be shifting the blame on us. It’s outrageous.”
The statement added: “As we suspected, the sheriff also confirms that his [Daniel’s] career was deemed to be more important. So if he had not done as well in his exams at school he would have been put on the sex offenders register? I think people will be appalled. We asked for the reasons but we’re never told. We’ve had nothing.”
Scottish Conservative shadow justice spokesman Liam Kerr raised the case at First Minister’s Questions on Thursday.
He asked if she agreed that serious sexual offences should be “punished severely” and that if there should be “more transparency around sentencing such as this”.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon replied that it is an important principle that sentencing is a matter for judges, not politicians, “however controversial or difficult they may be for the public”.
Responding to the importance the sheriff placed on the accused’s career, Sandy Brindley, of Rape Crisis Scotland, said: “It can be really frustrating for victims of sexual offences when the criminal justice system appears to place too much emphasis on what the impact will be on the offender.”
She added: “For the family not to have been told this information was being released is also symptomatic of how complainers can feel left on the margins. While a case affects them more than anyone, they are often the last to know what is going on.”