SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing Lord Cubie made the following remarks in court:

"In a discerning and discriminating verdict the jury found you guilty of 10 separate charges involving lewd indecent or libidinous behaviour, indecent assaults or sexual assaults perpetrated against the four children of the S family and their friend MD, as well as two offences of causing fear and alarm by a course of behaviour as you sought to establish a relationship with the families of young boys.

Charges 1 to 12 form the most serious behaviour in particular charges 1 to 5 and charges nine and 10, involving persistent bodily contact sexual misconduct against three individuals.

Charges 6,7 and 12 involving three children can be viewed as less serious because these did not involve physical interference with the complainers; but these offences were indicative of your proprietorial attitude and sense of entitlement in relation to how you acted towards these complainers, all children at the time. They were literally your playthings – you treated them in the way you chose for your own amusement and titillation without any reflection about the damage that your behaviour was causing and would continue to cause.

And the behaviour in charges 1-5 and 9 and 10 was not a collection of opportunistic episodes where you took advantage of a particular situation, but rather the results of a studied, persistent and long term grooming of the S family and MD.

You befriended the father through the guise of being concerned about him and using the cloak of the church; you thereafter insinuated yourself into the lives of the family. We heard evidence from all of the complainers that you were a regular Friday visitor to the S house. Knowing their vulnerability, in particular their financial vulnerability, you would buy the family shopping every Friday including a number of treats and then return with them to the family home. As was clear from the evidence you would provide alcohol for the father until he became drunk or at least sleepy. You yourself would limit your intake so that you were still capable of acting in the way which you did.

Thereafter, as was clear from the evidence, you abused the trust invested in you by the family, initially by sharing a sleeping bag with the two boys in the living room allowing you to perpetrate acts of abuse on a regular and frequent basis for your own selfish pleasure, blighting the rest of their lives and then extending the range,  the nature and frequency of the behaviour. MD was brought into your orbit by his friendship with K  and you directed your attention towards him by way of indecent assaults, as well as involving him in the behaviour which the jury accepted in relation to charge seven, trying to procure two children having intercourse with one another.

The effect on this family was ultimately seismic. It became clear from the evidence that matters came to a head when a scheme you had introduced, apparently to have three children come to Malaysia to see you became known to the social work department who intervened by removing the four children from the father’s care. That this, in part at least, resulted from your actions, I have no doubt. The children were interviewed; none of them said that anything had happened to them, but that is to be expected. As the jury were told, the experience of the courts is that there is often a reluctance to share such information. They were plainly frightened of you, and of how their father would react to any allegations; it was not clear that whether the children had any stage communicated with each other in relation to the concerns of the abuse which had been perpetrated. Quite properly the failure to report at an earlier stage was put to the witnesses, but the jury were plainly satisfied of the evidence in relation to the core allegations.

The corruption of these children had long-term implications.

I have had the opportunity of reading victim impact statements. There are overlaps in the effect but every one was affected materially; the complainers talk variously about struggles to cope with feelings, regular flashbacks, disrupted education and schooling, bad experiences for some from the care system, depression, meaning some victims attempted or thought of suicide. All complainers have encountered relationship difficulties and at the core of the experience of the victims is a lack of trust in everyone and a cynicism about any generosity shown.

I take these into account in so far as they reflect the terms of the conviction. It is clear that the effect of your behaviour is long-standing in relation to the ability of the victims to move on from your behaviour. The damage which you wreaked was not just to these individuals in isolation but you destroyed a family and the normal familial relationships which might have developed.

Charges 13 and 14 are less serious in relation to the criminal conduct but very worrying in the context of the future risk posed, a matter addressed in the victim impact statements from the complainers in these charges; they have also suffered a lack of trust in others going forward. In the context of the behaviour in charges 1 to 12, your continued interest in young male children is of considerable concern.

I have read the report and the risk assessment; the report in common with many reports at this stage of proceedings reflects your continued denial of the offence. That is your entitlement, but it materially undermines the value of the social work report and in my view it heightens concerns about the risk you pose when released from the sentence of imprisonment. There is no insight, no remorse, no reflection and no acceptance of any wrongdoing. That attitude, allied to your historic behaviour and the conduct in charges 13 and 14 mean there are ongoing concerns about the risk you pose to the extent that I consider post release supervision is both justified and necessary, the statutory threshold having been met.

I take into account the fact that there are no previous convictions but against that is the duration of the offending, where you continued to thrive very effectively in your working life until the demise of your business, while all those affected were burdened and are burdened by the consequences of your behaviour with wide ranging and life changing effects.

I take into account the guidelines promulgated by the Scottish Sentencing Council; taking these into account am satisfied that the principles of punishment, protection and expressing  society’s repugnance at you behaviour far outweigh other considerations and I consider, in determining the appropriate sentence, that both culpability and harm are high

As was recognised by your counsel there is no alternative but a custodial sentence ; that will require to be significant to reflect the nature, variety, duration and extent of the offending.

In relation to charges 1,2,3,4,5, 9 and 10 I impose a cumulo sentence of 11 years in prison. That custodial sentence imposed is not the end of your sentence; in relation to the 11 years imposed for charges one through to 12, I impose an extension period of two years; that extension period will be served in the community from the date of your release you will be under licence for an extension period of two years. The condition of your licence will be fixed by the Scottish ministers. If during this extension period you fail to comply with the conditions of your licence, it may be revoked and you may be returned to custody for a further period in respect of this case. The court also has power to deal with you if you commit another offence after your release and whilst on licence

In relation to charges 6,7 and 12 I impose a sentence of 18 months to be served concurrently with the sentence of eleven years,  imposed in relation to the earlier charges.

In relation to charges 13 and 14 I impose a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment, that to be served consecutively to the 11 years imposed in relation to the other charges. A discrete sentence is appropriate, reflecting the renewed attempts to make contact with younger children, whom you sought to bring within your sphere of influence

The Sexual offences notification requirements will be lifelong

The sentence imposed is backdated until 23 July when you were first remanded in custody. That is the sentence of the court."