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 Mary McClinden McGuire & Marie Bernadette O’Gorman
Mar 25, 2026
Sheriff Arrol KC made the following comments in court:
On 25 February, 2026 during the trial sitting, you Mary McClinden McGuire pled guilty to charges 4, 6, and 8 as amended and charges 5 and 9 as libelled, involving abuse of 5 complainers, between January, 1979 and September, 1981. Your youngest victim was just 5 years of age.
On 27 February, 2026 during the trial sitting, you Marie Bernadette O’Gorman pled guilty to charges 1, 2 and 3 as amended, involving abuse of 3 complainers, between November 1975 and August, 1979. Your youngest victim was just 3 years of age.
You were both in the services of Sister of Nazareth in Nazareth House, Glasgow. This was a religious order with the mission to provide care for the elderly and children in need. In short, it was to be a place of safety, security and comfort. Your conduct ensured it was none of those.
Your victims were aged between 3 and 12. You were both in a position of trust, Miss McGuire you were a novice and Sister O’Gorman you had made your final vows. Both of you had the responsibility of caring for children desperately requiring love and support. You failed to provide that to the complainers in this case.
You both engaged in violent, humiliating and degrading behaviour. Your conduct involved, amongst other things, repeatedly striking children with implements, including leather belts, slippers and hairbrush.
You were both in positions of responsibility and used those positions to abuse vulnerable children in your care over a period of years.
I now require to sentence you for the crimes to which you have pled guilty.
Mary McGuire, you are 68 years of age. You have no previous convictions. You were between 21 and 24 years old when you committed the offences before me.
Your criminal justice and social enquiry report makes concerning reading. You have sought to paint a picture of perfection as an exemplary care giver to these children. You have demonstrated absolutely no remorse. I am told you are more concerned about your own mental health than the victims in this case. Whilst this is completely at odds with the plea tendered by you, I place absolutely no reliance on your attempts to distance yourself from this offending behaviour. Subsequent to your time at Nazareth House, you have undoubtedly led a law-abiding life which has resulted in much good in your professional career as a carer but be clear about this, I am sentencing you on the basis of the conduct you engaged in between 1979 and 1981. It is fair to say that you were nothing short of monstrous to these children. That is the true picture.
Your risk assessment is low.
Marie O’Gorman, you are 79 years of age. You too have no previous convictions. You were aged between 28 and 32 years old when you committed the offences before me.
Your criminal justice and social enquiry report alludes to a culture of discipline being prevalent at the relevant time of these charges. You minimised your culpability, although to a lesser extent that your co-accused. You did demonstrate remorse and offered an apology to the victims.
You risk assessment is minimum.
Both of you have the protection of the statutory provision that prevents a court from passing a sentence of imprisonment on a person who has not been previously sentenced to imprisonment unless the court considers that no other method of dealing with you is appropriate.
In sentencing, firstly, I require to consider culpability.
You both offended against children in your care, abusing the position of trust you were then in.
The majority of your victims have provided a victim impact statement.
I recognise also the likely impact on those of your victims who did not provide a victim impact statement.
It is clear that your offending behaviour has had a significant effect upon them and continues to do so. Harm has been physical, emotional and psychological. The victim impact statements were compelling. Your conduct altered their lives forever. One victim impact statement sets out, in great detail, the lengths this particular individual had to go to in order to learn the basic skills of care giving and parenting. It was particularly moving to read.
I consider there is a high degree of culpability in this case.
I have read the terms of both criminal justice and social work reports, considered with care the mitigation on your behalf and in relation to you both the character references. I also take into account the reports in relation to Sister O’Gorman’s health.
The gravity of the crimes you have committed is such that the custodial threshold has been passed in this case, however, a sentence of imprisonment can only be imposed if the court considers that no other method of dealing with you is appropriate.
I require to consider a number of purposes that may be served by any sentence imposed. Those purposes are punishment, expressing disapproval, public protection and rehabilitation.
The sentence I impose today will encompass the purposes as appropriate.
Mary McGuire:
I am proposing to impose a Probation Order upon you today. The nature of a probation order is such that the court can only impose one if you consent to its terms and conditions.
During the currency of the order, you must be of good behaviour and must not to commit another offence; you must comply with the instructions of your supervising officer and inform them of any change of address or any future employment, and you must observe the additional conditions I will outline shortly.
In terms of the order, I propose to make, you will be under supervision for a period of 2 years. During this period, you must attend appointments with your responsible officer at the place and times instructed, for the purposes of promoting your rehabilitation and your continuing good behaviour.
I am imposing unpaid work, that will be for a period of 225 hours, reduced from 250 hours to be completed within 12 months.
In addition, the order will require you to pay compensation of £1000 to each of the 5 complainers on the charges you pled guilty to. That compensation must be paid in full within 1 month of today’s date.
If you fail to comply with the requirements imposed in this order, you will be reported back to this court and be dealt with for that failure. The court will either issue a warrant for your arrest, or you will be cited to come to court.
If it is proved that you failed to comply with the order or you commit another offence during the probation period you will be liable to be sentenced for the original offence.
The circumstances of the present offences are such that I am satisfied that you should be listed as unsuitable to work with children. I will direct the clerk of court to give the prescribed information the court holds in relation to you to the Scottish Ministers. It is a matter for them as to whether or not you are so listed.
Marie O’Gorman:
I am proposing to impose a Probation Order upon you today. The nature of a probation order is such that the court can only impose one if you consent to its terms and conditions.
During the currency of the order, you must be of good behaviour and must not to commit another offence; you must comply with the instructions of your supervising officer and inform them of any change of address, and you must observe the additional conditions I will outline shortly.
In terms of the order, I propose to make, you will be under supervision for a period of 2 years. During this period, you must attend appointments with your responsible officer at the place and times instructed, for the purposes of promoting your rehabilitation and your continuing good behaviour.
In addition, the order will require you to pay compensation of £1000 to each of the 3 complainers on the charges you pled guilty to. That compensation must be paid in full within 1 month of today’s date.
If you fail to comply with the requirements imposed in this order, you will be reported back to this court and be dealt with for that failure. The court will either issue a warrant for your arrest, or you will be cited to come to court.
If it is proved that you failed to comply with the order or you commit another offence during the probation period you will be liable to be sentenced for the original offence.
The circumstances of the present offences are such that I am satisfied that you should be listed as unsuitable to work with children. I will direct the clerk of court to give the prescribed information the court holds in relation to you to the Scottish Ministers. It is a matter for them as to whether or not you are so listed.”
25 March 2026
