SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing Judge Kevin McCallum KC made the following remarks:

"David Wilson, on 16 December 2024, you were convicted by a jury of 5 charges of sexual abuse perpetrated against two much younger females.

This abuse took place in your home or homes on occasions when these young girls had been left in the care of you and your wife.

On the evidence led, which the jury must have accepted, you took advantage of occasions when your wife had either retired early to bed, or was outwith the house for some reason, to carry out abuse upon your victims.

In relation to your first victim, your inappropriate conduct started with you exposing yourself naked to her in your living room on an occasion when she was aged somewhere between 8 and 10. I am entitled to infer that this was you testing the water with a view to carrying out further, more significant abuse. That conduct is reflected in Charge 1.

Your conduct towards your first victim escalated to two occasions when she was aged 11 or 12. On one occasion, you groped her bottom and touched her breast when she was in bed. On another occasion, you put pornography on the TV when you were in the living room with her; and then, having summoned her over to sit beside you on a couch, you then proceeded to touch her breasts. That conduct is reflected in Charge 2.

In relation to your second victim, your inappropriate conduct towards her started when she was aged about 12 and, on her evidence, initially continued until she was aged 13.

Your conduct towards her was significantly more serious than that in relation to your first victim. As well as inappropriate touching of her legs and her breasts on occasions; and as well as watching pornography in her presence, you took hold of her hand and made her masturbate you. On another occasion, you masturbated and ejaculated in her presence. On another occasion, you also licked her vagina, and continued to do so after she asked you to stop. It was clear from this victim’s evidence that your conduct towards her escalated and happened on a number of occasions. That conduct is reflected in Charge 5.

Most seriously of all, your conduct towards your second victim escalated to raping her on more than one occasion. On her evidence, she was aged about 12 when you first orally raped her. That oral rape involved a degree of force in that it involved you grabbing her by the hair and pushing her head towards your groin area to carry out that act.  On her evidence, you then vaginally raped her when she was aged 13 or so. On her evidence, it is likely that there was at least one further incident of oral rape. That conduct is all reflected in Charge 4.

In relation to your second victim, that was not an end to your inappropriate conduct towards her. On two occasions when she was aged 17 or so, and having persuaded to her to take a lift home from you, either at your own house or her own house you kissed her and touched her bottom against her wishes. On both occasions you also asked her to have sexual intercourse with you. That conduct is reflected in Charge 7.

There was also evidence that you supplied both these young girls with cannabis on occasions; and also supplied your second victim with alcohol when she was aged 12 or 13. I am entitled to infer that such actions were part of a ‘grooming’ process on your part.

It goes without saying that this was extremely serious sexual offending, particularly in relation to your second victim in regards to Charges 4 and 5.

In my view, the age of your victims when this conduct started and was carried out is a significant aggravating factor; particularly in relation to the most serious conduct against your second victim covered by Charges 4 and 5.

That this conduct took place when these young girls had been left in your care, represents a very serious breach of trust on your part; and is a further significant aggravating factor.

The fact that you were also a grown, married man when this conduct took place is also an aggravating factor.

I have listened to all that has been said on your behalf. You are now aged 44. I accept that your previous convictions for Road Traffic offences are of no significance in relation to the present matters; and I leave them out of account.

I accept that, other than these current offences, you have led a productive and generally law-abiding life since leaving school.

I also accept and have no doubt that your conviction and resultant imprisonment will have very significant, adverse effects upon your wife, your son and your family in general. Those, however, are consequences of your own making and your own actions.

Those consequences also have to be set against the very significant, long term consequences and psychological damage that you have caused to your victims, in respect of whom I have seen Victim Impact Statements describing the effects of your actions towards them; and the fact that your actions have caused an irreparable fracture in what was a previously close and loving extended family.

Put shortly, the nature of these offences, and in particular Charges 4 and 5, mean that, whatever mitigation may exist, the only appropriate sentence or sentences is or are significant periods of custody. Your solicitor advocate very properly acknowledged that.

In this case, I assess both the level of your culpability and the level of harm that you have caused as being very high. That is particularly so in relation to Charges 4 and 5.

Given the gravity of your offending in this case, and given the aggravating factors that I have identified, I am quite satisfied that a very significant custodial sentence is the only appropriate disposal.

I am quite satisfied that the objectives of punishment, deterrence and public protection outweigh any other sentencing objectives in your case.

Had I been dealing with these charges individually, I would have imposed the following sentences:-

Charge 1 – a sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 2 – a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment;

Charge 4 – a sentence of 8 years’ and 6 month’s imprisonment;

Charge 5 – a sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment; and

Charge 7 – a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.

Adding those sentences together would result in a total period of 14 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

However, in sentencing in cases such as this, the court must seek to apply the principle of Totality; so as to identify a sentence that reflects the gravity of the overall offending; but that is not disproportionate. A total period of 14 years and 9 months’ imprisonment would, in my assessment, be disproportionate.

Accordingly, in regards to Charges 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, I instead impose a cumulo sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

However, taking account of your age, your lack of any similar previous offending, your limited and minor offending history in general and the whole circumstances of this case, and taking into account what has been said on your behalf by your solicitor advocate today, I am not satisfied that in your case the requirements of s. 210A(1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 are met so that I should impose an Extended Sentence.

The cumulo sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment will date from 16 December 2024 when I first remanded you into custody.

As a consequence of your conviction and the sentence that I have imposed, you will be subject to the Notification Requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for an Indefinite Period.

I am also satisfied that in this case that on the Crown’s motion in relation to both complainers I should make a Non Harassment Order in terms of section 234A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

In terms of those Orders, you are prohibited from contacting, attempting to contact, approaching or attempting to approach either complainer for an Indefinite Period."

 17 January 2025