SENTENCING STATEMENTS

Please note that some of the details in this statement have been removed due to their distressing nature.

On sentencing, Sheriff Kevin McCallum KC said: 

"Mark John Michael Mason,

In 34 years' involvement in the criminal justice system first as a solicitor, then as counsel, then as senior counsel and now as a judge, before your case, I had never personally previously encountered a case where a person was found to be in possession of images of persons engaging in sexual activity with human corpses as features in the libel of Charge 4 that you have pleaded guilty to in this case.

One hears about such things, but one hopes personally never to experience or to deal with such a case.

That anyone would wish to possess or view such images and derive sexual gratification from doing so almost beggars belief, but you apparently did. Why else would you possess them?

There is an overwhelming public - and indeed plain human decency – interest in deterring persons, be it you or anyone else, from viewing such vile, deviant and degrading images.

Common sense dictates that a significant motivation for the creation of such disgusting, perverted and depraved images in the first place must be to feed the demands of persons like you to possess and view them.

Deterring persons like you, or anyone else, from possessing or viewing such disgusting, perverted and depraved images may reduce the incentive for creatures to record such images in the first place.

Whilst assessing how the images of sexual activity with human corpses in Charge 4 came to be recorded would necessarily involve me in indulging in speculation that I should not, and indeed do not wish, to indulge in, that is not the case in relation to the offences libelled in Charges 3 and 6 that you also pleaded guilty to.

Each and every one of the indecent images of children that you possessed or shared in relation to Charges 3 and 6 was or is a record of a crime of sexual abuse perpetrated by someone  against one or more children.

Again, there is a very strong public - and indeed human - interest in deterring persons from possessing, viewing or distributing such vile, perverted and depraved images of the sexual abuse of children.

Turning to Charge 7 that you also pleaded guilty to, this was and is also a very serious, sexual offence.

In terms of your plea of guilty to that Charge, you made repeated contact with a total of 6 persons who you believed to be children under the age of 16 and engaged in repeated, sexualised communication with them.

Again, there is a significant public interest in deterring persons from engaging in such activity that is, or is intended to be, the sexual abuse of children.

In terms of s. 204 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, I cannot impose a sentence of imprisonment on a person such as you who has never previously been sentenced to custody unless I am satisfied that there is no other appropriate sentence to impose other than custody.

In your case, despite what has been said on your behalf by your counsel, I am quite satisfied that the gravity of the offences that you have pleaded guilty to, in combination, mean that there is no other appropriate sentence to impose other than a significant custodial sentence.

Taking all matters together, the sentencing objectives of punishment, deterrence and public protection outweigh any other sentencing objectives so that a custodial sentence is the only appropriate disposal in your case.

Sometimes a sentence must punish an accused and reflect society’s utter abhorrence of that accused’s conduct; and send a deterrent message to others that, if they engage in such abhorrent conduct, they too will be severely punished by the courts.

Your case is such a case.

Accordingly, in respect of each of Charges 3, 4, 6 and 7, I impose a sentence of 34 months' imprisonment.

Given that the commission of each of these offences appears to have been part of the same vile, perverted and depraved course of sexual misconduct carried out by you, the sentences in respect of each of those charges will be ordered to be served concurrently; so that the total period of imprisonment imposed is one of 34 months' imprisonment.

Those sentences will date from 15 July 2024 when I first remanded you into custody.

I should add for the clarification or enlightenment of anyone who may be puzzled by what may appear the apparent lenience of the sentence that I have imposed in this case given my previous comments concerning the utter depravity involved in this case in relation particularly to Charge 4 that involved your possession of images of sexual activity with human corpses, I should make clear that, in terms of s. 51A (8) (b) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, I am restricted to imposing a maximum sentence of 3 years’ or 36 months’ imprisonment on Charge 4.

I should explain that, having heard from your counsel this morning, I have, with  hesitation, decided  not to  impose an Extended Sentence in relation to Charges 3, 6 and 7.

In that regard, I accept your counsel's submission that, given the lack of any analogous previous convictions or definite information that establishes a prior inappropriate sexual interest in children on your part; and given the stringent terms of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order that, it is accepted on your behalf, can and should be imposed in your case, I should refrain from the imposition of an Extended Sentence.

Because of your lack of criminal record of any note, I have, with considerable hesitation, decided to restrict the sentence imposed in this case to one of 34 months’ imprisonment in relation to Charge 4; and similarly to restrict the sentences in respect of Charges 3, 6 and 7 to the same period of 34 months’ imprisonment in relation to each of those Charges.

I have not modified the periods of imprisonment that I have imposed in respect of any of Charges 3, 4, 6 and 7 to reflect that you pleaded guilty to these Charges at a trial diet.

Modification of a sentence to reflect the timing of a guilty plea is a discretionary matter for the sentencing judge.

Following the line of authority deriving from HMA v Graham 2010 SCCR 641, due to the reduced utilitarian value of a plea of guilty in respect of offences of the type libelled in Charges 3, 4 and 6, a modification of sentence for such offences even at a stage of proceedings earlier than a trial diet would, in any circumstances, be unlikely to exceed 10 per cent.

In this case, however, you only tendered guilty pleas to these Charges at a trial diet after four continued first diets; and you disrupted or delayed that trial diet itself on 8 July 2024, causing further delay, expense and inconvenience to the court.

In relation to Charge 7, the evidence against you - including text or similar type messages that spoke for themselves - was overwhelming; and a plea of guilty to this charge was all but inevitable and should have been tendered at a far earlier stage in proceedings.

Furthermore, and more importantly, as with Charges 3, 4 and 6, so too with Charge 7, you only tendered a plea of guilty to this Charge at a trial diet after four continued first diets and after you had disrupted or delayed the trial diet itself on 8 July 2024, causing further delay, expense and inconvenience to the court. In my view, any utilitarian value in your plea of guilty to Charge 7 at the stage that you did eventually plead guilty to it is outweighed by the delay, expense and inconvenience to the court occasioned by your actions.

As a result of your conviction in relation to Charges 3, 4, 6 and 7 and the sentences that I have imposed, you will be subject to the Notification Requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for an Indefinite Period.

Wendy Marie Mason,

Everything that I have said to your husband regarding the Charges of possessing or distributing indecent images of children that he pleaded guilty to applies equally to the Charges of possessing or distributing indecent images of children in relation to Charges 1 and 5 that you have pleaded guilty to.

Not only is your sexual depravity or perversion indicated by the vile, perverted and depraved images of the sexual abuse of children covered by those Charges 1 and 5; but it is further demonstrated by your possession of images of human beings engaging in sexual acts with animals as reflected in Charge 2 to which you have also pleaded guilty.

I place little weight or reliance in the assertion put forward by you during interview for the preparation of the Criminal Justice Social Work report that you yourself had no sexual interest in the depraved images that you downloaded or possessed or shared.

Whilst it is suggested that you committed these disgusting and reprehensible offences under the influence of, and in order to please, your husband, as is recognised in the Criminal Justice Social Work report, and as common sense establishes, the offences committed by you were not impulsive. They required planning and effort on your part.

I am entitled to infer or conclude that a person with no interest in such vile material would simply refuse to engage in such activity at all.

You clearly did not refuse to engage in such activity.

I am quite satisfied that in your case, albeit that you appear before this court as a first offender, the so-called custody threshold has been met, so that I could, if needs be, justify the imposition of a custodial sentence or sentences in your case as well.

However, again having regard to the protection afforded to a person such as you by the provisions of s. 204 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995; having regard to the terms of the Criminal Justice Social Work Report prepared in relation to you; having regard to the terms of the psychological report prepared in relation to you; and having regard to what has been said on your behalf today, I am narrowly persuaded that I can refrain from imposing a custodial sentence or sentences on you today and, as direct alternatives to such a custodial sentence or sentences, make you the subject of a Community Payback Order and a Restriction of Liberty Order and Electronic Monitoring Order.

I have been informed that the terms and requirements of both such Orders have been explained to you; and you have confirmed that you are willing to comply with such Orders; and that you understand the consequences of failing to comply with the Orders being imposed.

Be in no doubt that if you do not comply with the conditions of either Order, you will be brought back before me when I will send you to prison.

Accordingly, in relation to Charges 1, 2 and 5, I impose a cumulo Community Payback Order with the following requirements:-

(1) an Unpaid Work  Requirement whereby you must perform 300 hours of Unpaid Work in the community within the next 12 months;

(2) a Supervision Requirement for a period of 3 years ; and

(3) a Conduct Requirement for a period of 3 years under which you will be subject to the following Conduct Conditions:-

(i) You shall not approach or communicate in any way, or attempt to approach or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, with any child who you know, or should have reasonable cause to believe, to be under the age of 18 without prior approval of your supervising officer and subject to any restrictions that your supervising officer may impose; and shall immediately report any unavoidable or inadvertent, approach or communication in any way to your supervising officer;

(ii) You shall not enter parks, playgrounds or any other places where children who you know, or should have reasonable cause to believe, to be under the age of 18 are likely to be or might reasonably be expect them to be without the prior approval of your supervising officer and subject to any restrictions that your supervising officer may impose, and shall immediately report any unavoidable or inadvertent entry to your supervising officer;

(iii) You shall not have any means to access the internet at home or at any other location, and shall not access the internet at home or at any other location, or store information obtained from the internet, without the prior approval of your supervising officer and subject to any restrictions that your supervising officer may impose; and you shall allow monitoring of all computer, mobile phone or other equipment you are allowed to use capable of accessing the internet or of mass storage of electronic data, as directed by your supervising officer; and you shall allow police officers and social workers responsible for or involved in your supervision, or others acting on their instructions, to inspect electronic equipment used by you and capable of accessing the internet or of storage of electronic data when requested to do so, with or without advance notice; and

(iv) You shall immediately inform your supervising officer of any friendships, associations or intimate or domestic relationships you enter into with anyone; and provide your supervising officer with the identities, and all contact information which you have in relation to them, of persons, as he or she may require, who you have spoken to or communicated with, either directly or indirectly, during any period/s that your supervising officer may require.

In relation to Charges 1, 2 and 5, I also impose a cumulo Restriction of Liberty and Electronic Monitoring Order whereby you will remain within your home address daily between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am for a period of 9 months.

I have not modified the terms of either Order that I have imposed to reflect the fact that you first offered to plead guilty to the charges that you did eventually plead guilty to at a Continued First Diet on 16 January 2024.

As I have already stated, modification of a sentence to reflect the timing of a guilty plea is a discretionary matter for the sentencing judge.

As I have also already stated, following the line of authority deriving from HMA v Graham 2010 SSCR 641, due to the reduced utilitarian value of a plea of guilty in respect of offences of the type libelled in Charges 1, 2 and 5, a modification of sentence even at a stage of proceedings earlier than a trial diet would be unlikely to exceed 10 per cent.

In this case, it is difficult to see why a plea of guilty to those Charges was not offered or tendered prior to a continued first diet, given the overwhelming nature of the evidence against you. It cannot, for example, be explained by the psychological report that was instructed on your behalf that, whilst it contained certain mitigatory information, provided no exculpatory information.

In any event, I have effectively applied a modification to recognise the timing of your offer of guilty pleas by refraining from simply sending you to prison today.

As a result of your conviction in relation to Charges 1 and 5 and the sentence that I have imposed, including a Restriction of Liberty and Electronic Monitoring Order, you will be subject to the Notification Requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a Period of 5 years.

For the avoidance of doubt in that regard, because I have imposed a Restriction of Liberty and Electronic Monitoring Order in addition to a Community Payback Order, you are ‘a person of any other description' for the purposes of s. 82 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, so that the Notification Requirement Period in your case is one of 5 years.

Intimation of your conviction and sentence will also be made to the Scottish Ministers so that your name can be added to the list of those prohibited from working with children or other vulnerable persons.

Furthermore, in all the circumstances, including the terms of the Criminal Justice Social work report and its assessment of the future risk of sexual offending that you pose, I am also satisfied that the bases or grounds for the Crown's application for a Sexual Harm Prevention Order in relation to you are made out in respect of each of the Conditions sought by the Crown so that I will make a Sexual Harm Prevention Order in relation to you in the terms sought by the Crown for a period of 5 years. 

Intimation of your conviction and sentence will also be made to the Scottish Ministers so that your name can be added to the list of those prohibited from working with children or other vulnerable persons.

Furthermore, in all the circumstances, not least given the terms of the Criminal Justice Social work report and its assessment of the future risk of sexual offending that you pose, I am also satisfied that the bases or grounds for the Crown's application for a Sexual Harm Prevention Order in relation to you are made out in respect of each of the Conditions sought by the Crown so that I will make a Sexual Harm Prevention Order in relation to you in the terms sought by the Crown for a period of 5 years."