SENTENCING STATEMENTS

Upon sentencing, Lord Scott made the following remarks:

"On 17 September last year, you were found guilty of 5 charges –

• forceful rape of the first complainer in December 2011
• rape of the first complainer in February 2012 when she was asleep and incapable of consenting
• engaging in a course of violent, threatening, controlling and abusive behaviour of the second complainer for a 2 year period between August 2021 and August 2023
• forceful rape of the second complainer on various occasions over that same 2 year period, and
• forceful, violent rape of the second complainer in February 2023.
  

"The last 2 charges were aggravated due to involving abuse of the second complainer. The Appeal Court has made clear that this is a serious aggravation which should be taken into account in sentencing, usually meaning an increase in any custodial sentence.

"I have seen impact statements prepared by your 2 victims in this indictment. In addition, the trial judge describes the evidence of the first complainer and the obvious impacts on her of what you did. And, of course, this indictment is the second one where the first complainer has been your victim, with the docket in this case arising from your last conviction in the High Court.

"I am therefore aware of the significant harm you have caused to your victims - physical, psychological and emotional. Consistent with what the court knows from such cases more generally, your victims still suffer the impacts of what you did to them and will continue to do so for a long time.

"The second complainer explains that your abuse has left her feeling unsafe in her own home. Your abuse has diminished her feelings of self-worth and left her easily triggered by shouting or unexpected noise. She suffers depression and panic attacks. The abuse has affected her sleep and ability to socialise. She says, 'I’ve felt stuck in this place since and, although some days can be better than others, it will take me a very long time to go back to the person that I was before this happened to me, where my body and my mind were not in a constant state of threat, fear and anxiety.' She just wants to feel safe in her own skin and her own house again, 'to find her old self back again'.

"The first complainer describes the pain and torture she suffered at your hands, leaving physical reminders which still affect her. Some of what she describes seems to relate to the last case and accordingly I leave that out of account here, although I note her statement, no doubt influenced by her experience of violence and abuse by you taken together, that her children saved her from attempting suicide and therefore saved her life. Knowing that you had behaved the same way towards another victim brought her mixed emotions, sadness and anxiety but also some relief that her suffering at your hands was over, that she no longer had to suffer your abuse as a recluse. She says that you made her feel like the villain for surviving your rape and abuse. She is now crippled by PTSD and lives in a constant state of fear and anxiety, although she explains that she has now taken back the power you had over her and her children.

"On 10 October 2025, the trial judge made a risk assessment order. He did so on application of the Crown but also having regard to the serious nature of the index offences, your previous convictions and the terms of the Justice Social Work Report (JSWR) dated 2 October 2025.  On the basis of this material, he was satisfied that the risk criteria in section 201E may be met.

"Having been made subject to a risk assessment order 10 months ago, I now have the benefit of a detailed risk assessment report dated 16 January 2026 and prepared by Sophie Higginson, which you accept as correctly assessing the risk you pose as high. I also have the more recent and detailed risk assessment report prepared by Professor David Cooke, instructed on your behalf, which I have now read. It makes the same assessment of high risk.

"In these reports, as in the JSWR, you deny all sexual crimes and deny or minimise your abusive and violent behaviour. You display no meaningful insight and remorse, seeing yourself as a victim rather than acknowledging that your behaviour has caused serious harm to both victims.

"There are gaps in some of the information about your childhood mentioned by both risk assessors but I note from the reports that you have consistently claimed to have suffered adverse childhood experiences. Despite Professor Cooke’s concerns about the history you narrated, with apparent differences and inconsistencies at different times, I am prepared to accept that you did suffer such adverse childhood experiences including neglect and early exposure to domestic abuse and drugs, however, despite what Mr Lenehan said on your behalf, as your offending behaviour has continued for over 30 years, from the age of 16 to 49, this is not a factor that can now be given much weight at all. Indeed, your culpability in the offences before me is extremely high. In relation to the gap in the records, there is no suggestion that this affects the overall assessment of risk.

"I note that, no doubt related at least in part to your adverse childhood experiences, you have had mental health issues and engaged in substance misuse throughout your adult life. At times, you have received some medication and other support for these issues. Records refer to a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder although these records are incomplete. The first risk assessor identified nothing to conflict with such a diagnosis and found some notable traits for paranoid personality disorder. She also found traits which suggest that you meet the proposed diagnostic criteria for psychopathy.

"The second risk assessor said that clinical examination indicated that you suffer from a psychopathic personality disorder of a degree that can be considered very severe relative to the normal population, you also meet the criteria for sexual sadism disorder.

"You have achieved some periods of stability as regards substance misuse and have managed to avoid offending at times. Indeed, the first RAR notes indications that you 'may have some capacity to set and achieve pro-social goals'. However, these periods have never lasted, and you have returned consistently to substance misuse and an entrenched pattern of violent and abusive offending. There is much work to be done by and with you to try to reduce the risk of serious harm you undoubtedly pose.

"I need not quote the terms of Sophie Higginson’s report in detail but it is worth repeating the following summary as regards the risk you pose:

'Mr Pollock’s pattern of offending indicates an enduring propensity to seriously endanger the lives, physical and psychological well-being of the public at large. The outcomes of the current assessment indicate that he  possesses problematic, persistent and pervasive characteristics relevant to his risk. In the past, he been subject to a range of relevant risk management measures, none of which have had a lasting impact on his risk of seriously harmful violence towards partners. While he may have some capacity to develop protective factors in certain areas of his life, despite frequent involvement with criminal justice services he has not yet been motivated, willing or able to apply changes that would manage his risk of intimate partner violence/sexual violence. On balance, there is a significant risk that if Mr Pollock’s risk is not managed with long-term concerted measures, he will continue to inflict serious harm.'

"If anything, the terms of Professor Cooke’s RAR are more troubling. Again, without quoting it in detail, in his summary he states, 'The crimes and offences that Mr Pollock has been convicted of demonstrate that he is a serious, persistent and versatile offender. The pattern of his intimate partner violence is sadistic in character. Clinical examination indicates that he suffers from a psychopathic personality disorder, he meets criteria for Sexual Sadism Disorder (DSM-5). A broad evaluation of established risk factors for sexual violence, and for intimate partner violence, indicates that virtually all risk factors apply in this case'.

"Having addressed 3 specific risk factors – your history of addiction to illicit substances, psychopathic personality disorder and sexual deviance, Professor Cooke concludes, 'Thus, it is my opinion that Mr Pollock has an enduring propensity to seriously endanger the well-being of the public at large.' He too assesses you as presenting a high risk of sexual and other violence to members of the public, in particular future intimate partners.

"Rightly recognising the import of the RARs, the assessment of risk as high and the inevitability of an OLR, Mr Lenehan said all that can be said on your behalf on Monday. I have considered this along with the other material before me.

"You are 52 years old and have several previous convictions including 4 indictment matters. This includes several convictions for violence, including 3 in the High Court - in 1992 (for assault and robbery and analogous matters), 2002 (for culpable homicide) and 2014 (for several assaults with a domestic aggravation where your former partner was your victim over a 3 year period). Those last 2 High Court convictions, by far the most significant in your criminal history, resulted in custodial sentences respectively of 5 years imprisonment and an extended sentence of 7 years with a custodial term of 5 years.  You have served several other custodial sentences and have also received community disposals, including probation and a DTTO. 

"I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities on the basis of all the information before me but, in particular, the 2 detailed risk assessment reports, that the risk criteria in section 210E are met, that there is a link between the offences and the risk, and that an order for lifelong restriction is the only sentence which will provide protection from that risk.

"As an adult, you took someone’s life. That places you in company with a very small number of people who have killed someone and returned to the community. Since then, you have continued with a life of offending including violent, threatening and abusive behaviour and serious sexual violence. All of the offending in this indictment happened after your release from that sentence. You carried out the offending in charges 4, 6 and 7 after your release from the extended sentence imposed in the High Court in 2014. Your response to attempts at supervision and support in the past and efforts to remain substance-free have not been sustained.  

"Each of the 5 charges is serious with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for charges 1, 3, 6 and 7 and 14 years for charge 4.

"In view of the assessed risk, if not imposing an OLR, I would certainly have imposed a substantial cumulo extended sentence.

"If sentencing on each of the 5 charges separately, the relevant custodial terms would have been:

"Charge 1 – the rape of the first complainer in December 2011 – 7 years

"Charge 3 – the rape of the first complainer in February 2012 – 7 years

"Charge 4 – the 2 year course of abusive behaviour towards the second complainer – 10 years

"Charge 6 – the rape of the second complainer over a period of 2 years  – 10 years (including 12 months for the domestic aggravation)

"Charge 7 - the rape of the second complainer in February 2023 – 8 years (including 12 months for the domestic aggravation).

"That would give a total custodial term of 42 years which, even with your appalling record, would have been excessive.

"To take account of the principle of totality and making such adjustment as I consider would still produce a sentence which addresses punishment, protection of the public and deterrence, but is also fair and proportionate, if I were not imposing an order for lifelong restriction, I would have imposed a cumulo extended sentence of 22 years consisting of a custodial term of 14 years and an extension period of 8 years.

"As the extension period of 8 years would have addressed the risk of serious harm to the public, it now falls out of consideration in view of the sentence I am imposing.

"In order to fix the punishment period of the life sentence I impose today, I half the period of 14 years to 7 years. But I must make it clear to you that this is not a sentence of 7 years imprisonment. It is a life sentence. The imposition of a punishment part of 7 years of the life sentence does not mean that you will be released automatically at the end of that 7 year period;  it simply means that until that 7 year period has elapsed you cannot ask to be considered for parole.  Even after the 7 year period comes to an end, your date of release (if any) will depend on the view that the Parole Board take of the risks to public safety which you pose when it  considers your case. Unless you work to address and reduce your risk, you may never be released. While acknowledging that work with you will be challenging, Professor Cooke sets out a possible pathway for progress in your sentence but any progress depends on you.

"In short, I impose an order for lifelong restriction with a punishment part of 7 years to run from 24 July 2023.  

"As a consequence of this sentence, you will be subject to notification requirements indefinitely. 

"In addition to this sentence, I must consider whether to make a non‑harassment order in relation to your victims. I will make such an order.

"The conditions of that order are as follows:

"That you must not approach, contact, communicate directly or indirectly with or attempt to approach, contact or communicate with the first or second complainer. The order will be for an indefinite period and will commence today.”

12 August 2026