SENTENCING STATEMENTS
A judge may decide to publish a statement after passing sentence on an offender in cases where there is particular public interest; where a case has legal significance; or where providing the reasons for the decision might assist public understanding.
Please note that statements may include graphic details of offences when it is necessary to fully explain the reasons behind a sentencing decision.
Follow us if you wish to receive alerts as soon as statements are published.
Once charges are spent, any statement in relation to them is removed and cannot be provided or acknowledged. Statements published before the launch of the website may be available on request. Please email judicialcomms@scotcourts.gov.uk.
The independence of the judiciary is essential to safeguard people’s rights under law - enabling judges to make decisions impartially based solely on evidence and law, without interference or influence from the government or politicians.
When deciding a sentence, a judge must deal with the offence that the offender has been convicted of, taking into account the unique circumstances of each particular case. The judge will carefully consider the facts that are presented to the Court by both the prosecution and by the defence.
For more information about how judges decide sentences; what sentences are available; and matters such as temporary release, see the independent Scottish Sentencing Council website.
Read more about victims of crime and sentencing.
HMA v Douglas & Barbara Daniel
Mar 9, 2026
Sheriff Arrol KC made the following comments in court:
“Douglas Daniel and Barbara Daniel, on 27 January, 2026, you were convicted by a jury of your peers of six charges of cruel and unnatural treatment of children. The libel spanned from 1986 until 1991, just short of 5 years.
You were each engaged in the role of foster carer. I understand that the children had been removed from their primary care givers. They were brought to you, as emergency placements, for their safety. What we know now is that they were completely unsafe in their placement with you.
There were 6 complainers for whose care and protection you were responsible. The youngest child was just 4 years old when she was placed with you.
The abuse you perpetrated upon them was emotional, physical and psychological. Your treatment of these children was designed to instil fear and terror. It was nothing short of barbaric.
The lifelong effect of this conduct is unquantifiable. The complainers were children in desperate need of nurture, care and love. Depriving them of this has resulted in a myriad of life challenges they have required to overcome. Even after decades, the impact upon each of them was absolutely clear. I commend their bravery for coming forward to relive what has been life altering trauma. They did that in pursuit of justice, their courage and perseverance has allowed that to be finally delivered.
I have read and considered with the care, the victim impact statements provided to me from three complainers. They describe that the abuse suffered has shaped every part of their lives negatively. The effects still endure after 4 decades. In short, you took their childhood.
Sentencing can have a number of purposes, protection of the public, punishment, rehabilitation of the offender, allowing the offender the opportunity to make amends and expressing disapproval of the conduct.
In relation to the charges before me, my view is that both culpability and harm are high. It then follows that the level of seriousness is high too.
You were in a position of trust, apparently safeguarding vulnerable children. More than that, you chose to act in the role of parent for these children. The behaviour you engaged in towards the children in your care was cruel, degrading and humiliating.
Mr Daniel you were 38 at the start of this offending. Mrs Daniel you were in your mid-thirties. You were both mature. Whilst you were both foster carers for the children in this case, you, Mrs Daniel were the full-time care giver.
Mr Daniel you have lengthy record for dishonesty and breaches of court orders, culminating in a custodial sentence in 2003. It is quite remarkable that you were considered fit to foster any children.
Mrs Daniel you have no record of previous offending.
I have taken into account the terms of each of your Criminal Justice and Social Work reports and the medical report provided in relation to Mrs Daniel. I have also had regard to all that has been said on your behalf by your counsel today.
Mr Daniel, you are now 77 years old.
The criminal justice and social work report narrates that you have accepted no responsibility for the offences. In my view, you indulged in victim blaming. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no blame to be placed at the door of any victim in this case. It was a pathetic attempt to distance yourself from this disgraceful behaviour.
I note that you had a difficult upbringing, punctuated with violence at the hand of your caregiver.
Mrs Daniel, you are now 76 years old. The criminal justice and social work narrated that you too accept no responsibility for the offences. The author of the report also observes that you demonstrate little insight into the harm caused to the victims. Similar to your husband, violence has been a longstanding feature of your formative years.
You are both assessed as low risk of reconviction and medium risk to the victims and other children.
Standing the high level of culpability, high level of harm caused and the aggravating factors present, I am satisfied that a custodial sentence is appropriate.
Douglas Daniel, I impose a cumulo sentence on all charges of 30 months imprisonment.
Mrs Daniel, for you, before a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, I require to be satisfied that no other method of dealing with you is appropriate. For the same reasons, I am satisfied that only a custodial sentence is appropriate.
Barbara Daniel, I impose a cumulo sentence on all charges of 30 months imprisonment.
Both periods of imprisonment will commence from today.
That is all.”
9 March 2026