Guilty of sexual assault of a 6 year old girl - but no consequences

Disgusting

It doesn't diminish that little girl in anyway if our justice system finds a different way to ensure that the boy who did this never causes that kind of harm again

I do disagree with this. We do away with blood feuds and we devolve our justice to the state. In return we expect a few things:

1. Removal of the offender as needed from society. This prevents further harm and provides a visible removal of the offender
2. Rehabilitation if possible/suitable - if not, back to point 1.
3. Retribution - some form of sanction on the offender. This satisfies the social need for revenge.

The man here has not been subjected to any of these measures. He’s had, as the article says, no therapy or counselling. He’s had no sanction, and he hasn’t been removed from society.

When society sees justice fail like this otvis damaging. And the damage to the victim is incalculable

By treating victims of sexual assault as being scarred beyond belief and traumatised for life,

But many sexual assault victims are traumatised. And it often has long reaching consequences years after the fact. As a survivor, I've experienced panic attacks in the last year stemming from rape 18 years ago. It's impossible to say what the effect on this little girl will be. This young man used her for whatever selfish reasons he had. "Curiosity"? For two years? Bullshit.

You obviously have a lot more faith in the legal system and judiciary than I do, and I can't say I understand why.

Sorry if anyone did this to a 6 year old girl in my family. I would have gone straight to the police, what were the parents thinking trusting the other family to deal with it. They were so naive.

You make a lot of fair points Blistory but

It doesn't diminish that little girl in anyway if our justice system finds a different way to ensure that the boy who did this never causes that kind of harm again

Nothing’s happened to this boy. He’s received an absolute discharge. Effectively let off completely despite a conviction. The girl’s parents weren’t baying for blood and only reported it when it seemed the boy’s family wasn’t taking it seriously.

The irony is it will probably affect him more now than if he’d just been put on the SOR and found a different career. It probably would have barely been reported then and forgotten about quickly.

What he did was wrong - of course it was - and he deserves to be punished.

The Sheriff doesn't however appear to think the boy - and he was and is a boy - was a paedophile which is significant. He has found him guilty of a sexual assault on a child which is also significant. The boy didn't seek out victims to abuse, he didn't escalate his behaviour, he doesn't appear to be a threat to others. Neither family seemed to consider it to be something that couldn't be dealt with by counselling and parental support. Those factors appear to have influenced the Sheriff. He's not known for being a maverick Sheriff and has had no difficulty in passing sentence against others for domestic violence and assault so I doubt His Lordship suddenly took leave of his senses.

The fact that the Crown Office dropped their appeal also suggests that they found the Sheriff's decision to be supported by case law and sentencing guidelines. There is a sliding scale of assault which is reflective when it of how we pass punishment and how we consider rehabilitation. If we don't like it, we should petition to change that instead of the mass knee jerk reaction that is happening right now online.

Don't get me wrong, the only victim in this is the young girl but I have no doubt that this boy is being punished. He has been accused of rape and being a paedophile, he's been named and shamed online, he's had death threats and his name will be searchable long after social media has moved on.

Sometimes, as a society, the right thing to do is to help the bad guys turn into good guys. It doesn't diminish that little girl in anyway if our justice system finds a different way to ensure that the boy who did this never causes that kind of harm again.

The SOR is a blunt tool and it's perhaps time that we reconsidered the mandatory nature of it. On another level, perhaps it's also time to rethink the mantra of sex offenders as monsters. Because they're not and by believing in the bogeyman, we allow seemingly nice, normal men to hide in the open. By treating victims of sexual assault as being scarred beyond belief and traumatised for life, is, in my opinion, sexist and stems from the view of women as fragile, as possessions, as being no longer 'pure'.

The additional (horrible) details make it very clear to me that this is deliberate assault, not even disguised. He also created circumstances to be alone with the girl, and tempt her there to the computer. Grooming and paedophilia. Plain as day.

Why on earth would the sheriff be trying to avoid the SOR blistory? Unless he is misogynist paedophile apologist.

The SOR was made for men like Christopher Daniel. He is exactly the sort of man you don't want as your dentist and he should never be able to become one.

Should be SOR as a minimum. Certainly needs to be attending mandatory sex offender courses. He has equivocated about his guilt. Not a good sign. Getting off scot-free simply reinforces his thinking that he isn't really guilty of anything.

The girl will be affected. Its impossible for this not to. I just hope that she has the help she needs to stop it ruining her life.

If NS can't do anything surely there are still grounds for an appeal for being too lenient. WTF is the point of a justice system if one man can decide to take no action against a guilty criminal and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

I understand ethics are a strong part of medical training. His "curiosity" and does not fit with what he must know about acceptable behaviour.

1. His parents have proven themselves untrustworthy by not following through on counselling as initially (and I'll advisedly agreed). This case absolutely stinks.

www.gdc-uk.org/api/files/Student%20professionalism%20and%20fitness%20to%20practise%20Full%20guidance%20for%20students.pdf

P8, point 10- fitness to practice- appropriate behaviour. HTF does a guilty verdict fit in with this?

Oh and very few people dislike Sturgeon more than I do but she is right. She can't interfere with the judiciary.

Well quite. Imagine how THAT would look in the light of a certain upcoming high profile trial!

Oh and very few people dislike Sturgeon more than I do but she is right. She can't interfere with the judiciary.

The Sheriff appears to have reached that conclusion because any sentencing at all would have required an entry on the SOR. I think the minimum term would have been 3.5 years depending on the length of sentence.

I think if there had been an option to avoid the SOR, the Sheriff may have been more willing to sentence differently given that he had found him guilty.

I see it was PF (Procurator Fiscal) v Daniel rather than HMA (Her Majesty's Advocate) so won't have been a jury trial.

My understanding is that many, many criminal trials are non-jury. Describing it as "less serious" is less serious compared to rape, murder, violent assault.

What bollocks. I’ve signed the petition.

Blistory, I don't think the Sheriff's statement supports your suggestion that he was reluctantly forced to the absolute discharge by the lack of middle ground sentencing.

It says this:
the Sheriff reached the conclusion that justice could be served in this case by taking the wholly exceptional decision not to pass sentence and to grant an absolute discharge.

If he were unhappy with the lack of middle ground, he could have expatiated on this.

So middle class wankers, sticking together, minimising and and brushing sexual assault under the carpet. Nice. I cannot believe this is still the state of play in the 21st century.

No decision on the guilt or sentencing of a sex offender (with consequences thereafter for others, i.e. because of the offender not being placed on the sex offenders register) should be affected by the lenient views of the family of the victim. That's not their call.

The Sheriff makes clear his decision was partly based on:

"the complainer’s family held no ill will against the accused’s family. [...] Their main focus appeared to be a wish to have the accused admit his culpability and address his behaviour.

That doesn't exactly marry up with this part of the Sheriff's statement:

he initially denied, but later admitted, his actions. The complainer’s parents agreed not to contact the police at that time understanding that the accused was to obtain professional help, to which he was agreeable. However, subsequently believing that he was backtracking on, and changing the nature of, his admissions they decided to contact the police.

Nor with the fact that Daniel must have pleaded Not Guilty (given he was found guilty after a three-day trial). Daniel's Not Guilty plead also meant the child was put through the additional questioning by the court.

Not much admission of culpability and wish to address his behaviour there.

It wont have been a jury trial. The prosecutor in non jury trials is the procurator fiscal, in jury ones (even in the sheriff court) it’s her majesty’s advocate. This one was the procurator fiscal.

So - he evades the sex offenders register and is able to continue in preparing for a profession for which an advanced DBS is required. He will have children and women in his dentist's chair and be able to anesthetise.

I am a school governor. I am never alone with children yet must have an advanced DBS.

boat yes, it's much too early to say that. I know a young woman who was sexually abused at age 5, and the lasting effects were not obvious prior to adolescence.

My reading of it is that the Sheriff did take it seriously enough to find him guilty but had no middle ground in terms of sentencing. It was either punishment severe enough that would impact the boy's life disproportionately or an absolute discharge.

I don't think either option was right in the particular circumstances of this case but that requires changes in the sentencing guidelines.

Just saw a comment on a news page that apparently his mother had been a head teacher in one of the highest performing state secondary schools, don’t know whether that’s true though. However where the trial was would certainly fit in with him residing in that area.

Hmm, they are making him out to have special needs, as though at 17 he is unable to know right from wrong and has the mind of a small child. So how is he then up to studying dentistry? I would be wondering who his mum and dad are. Friends in high places?

And yet mature and communicative to get a place to enter a profession requiring trustworthiness, communication skills and reliability dealing with vulnerable women and children.

Exactly. And highly competitive as well.