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

[feministfairy]

Do the rights and safety of little girls in Scotland matter so little to the judiciary? This defies belief:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/student-guilty-of-sex-assault-on-girl-6-will-not-be-punished-rpzdx6bmv?shareToken=a5f3f8d4d214df63fa3b4d0f4323ea4c

Being on or not on the SOR can be of little use in protecting the public from offenders.

Any job that requires and enhanced disclosure will show up that he went to trial and was found guilty of these offences.

Regardless of SOR status (which isn’t permanent) he shouldnt be able to get any job with access to vulnerable people now.

How does enhanced check work though? Someone previously said it’s up to the police to decide what’s relevant to disclose? Is that correct? Because if the judge doesn’t think punishment is relevant how can we rely on the police to decide its relevant?

There are too many potential loopholes.

Would a win in the civil courts get him on the SOR?

No.

So what would the gain of a civil win be?

And how could the crown be requested to allow appeal? (Sorry not a legal person and have little idea of all this.)

I can see the point of civil action if he’d been found not guilty, to get a guilty verdict. But he’s been found guilty already. The issue is lack of consequences but what could the civil court impose that would be relevant?

Those conditions breed vigilantism- and that’s not somewhere we want to go

I agree. Where I live (not in the UK) last year there was a case where a man who had been accused of sexually assaulting young girls was found not guilty, basically on a technicality (because the police here aren't very good at interviewing children). Six weeks later he was found dead. He did not commit suicide. No-one has been convicted of his murder - the police didn't try very hard to find the perpetrator

I understand the anger of the families involved, and I understand their frustration at the justice system failing their daughters. I can't support vigilantism, though. It's wrong

I think that’s right oleanna - I’m actually starting to think that the sheriff didn’t do him such a great favour (for the lack of better word) - this sentence has angered people, not sure how safe his is.

Yep I agree drink (love your username btw) if he’d had some kind of sentence that put him on the SOR and gave him a record of some kind most of us probably wouldn’t have heard of this case at all. He’d have had to have left his course and taken an alternative career route but there wouldn’t have been all this media coverage.

I think the sentence and the reasons given were ridiculous and too lenient and questions need to be asked around that, and if possible an appeal instituted and a more appropriate sentence given. But the social media and baying for the guy’s blood makes me feel very uncomfortable. What if all of this makes him take his own life? It wouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility that this could happen. I won’t be signing the petition.

Here is a petition that makes more sense than the first one it is tempered.

www.change.org/p/review-on-the-decision-made-by-court-on-christopher-daniel-despite-being-found-guilty

Signed, thank you justasking111

So what would the gain of a civil win be?
A civil action would be for monetary compensation for damages.

And how could the crown be requested to allow appeal? (Sorry not a legal person and have little idea of all this.)

The Crown has already said it is not pursuing an appeal against sentence. That decision is for the Crown- the family have no right to request an appeal.

I can see the point of civil action if he’d been found not guilty, to get a guilty verdict. But he’s been found guilty already. The issue is lack of consequences but what could the civil court impose that would be relevant?

See above - it would be compensation for damage caused.

Glasgow uni has suspended him, and is conducting a disciplinary investigation.

Smart move, Glasgow.

Can’t imagine a parent wanting to send DC (and their fees) to an institution that shelters sex offenders.

Signed the new petition, thank you justasking111

Good stuff, signed.

Signed and shared on Facebook. I've no idea if these petitions make any difference, but at least it keeps it in the public eye.

I'm another one who thinks his punishment is now far greater than if he had been found guilty and given a minimal sentence. The whole country is now talking about him, his coursemates will now all know what he has done and I'm sure won't be welcoming him back with open arms. I'm sure all of the paedophile shaming sites will have his name and face shared everywhere. I've seen those websites stage protests at people's homes and have them run out of town. His life will be ruined now.

If he is allowed to finish his course, I can't imagine many dental practices wanting to take on someone who between the ages of 15-17 sexually assaulted a 6-8 yo.

the sheriff concluded that the offence was “the result of an entirely inappropriate curiosity of an emotionally naive teenager rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification”.

Wtf? Really?

In practice enhanced disclosures would show this up.

The police would have to have a very good reason for not disclosing this.

Plus any employer could just google his name.

So the public should still be protected.

When perpetrators get put on the SOR it isn’t for life it’s only for a set time, usually not more than 10 years so it’s not really a very good tool for protecting the public.

I hope the family do pursue a civil case but with him being a student he probably has few assets to pay out compensation so unlikely they would get anything/much.

There is criminal injury compensation and I’d hope she’d get that.

As for unis having sex offenders. Given that they usually have 15000+ students it’s highly likely that there are sex offenders at every uni in the U.K.

There are no disclosure checks done on people moving into halls of residence.

I am really really angry and upset about this. I find it difficult as this is basically what DS said happened to him, but there was no corroboration and social services deemed I was protecting my child so they had no role. It was up to me to keep DS safe through the family courts.

If I go into more detail, it will out me, so I will not. But in this case, there must have been corroboration for it to get to a prosecution and the Sheriff here does not suggest no offence was committed.

I cannot tell you the depth of my anger about this. There should be no world where touching a child inappropriately is brushed under the carpet because the perpetrator has a nice, middle class career (or potential career).

I did the best I could and it was not enough. And it could never have been enough. And that makes me furious beyond measure. But even if we had got to court, you know, I do not think it would have made any difference overall. That is what makes me angry.

I won't be signing either of those petitions. I agree the Sheriff has probably done Daniel more harm than good than if he had imposed a non-custodial sentence and a brief period on SOR.

It is a bit ridiculous to have focused on Daniel 's promising career in dentistry. He is 18- he will have completed one term of his first year.

Dentistry at Glasgow has very high, science- based entry requirements. Imposing a sentence would exclude Daniel from pursuing a degree which leads to a career where moral probity is required - so dentistry, medicine, law, accountancy, teaching, nursing would no longer be options. There are still plenty of other options available.

I think the judge decided that nobody was allowed to know the reasons for the decision? So if this is correct why you will never know. I’m basing this off a YouTube video by the Scottish guy who was prosecuted for making an offensive poor taste joke m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iga_8xocGGo

The sheriff's sentencing statements are here, Awall.

www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/2121/PF-v-Christopher-Daniel