Euan McColm: When a sheriff goes easy on child abuse we must speak out

Christopher Daniel case is so grave that politicians have a right to challenge the fitness of Gerard Sinclair to hold office, writes Euan McColm.
A general view of Dumbarton Sheriff Court. Picture: John DevlinA general view of Dumbarton Sheriff Court. Picture: John Devlin
A general view of Dumbarton Sheriff Court. Picture: John Devlin

Over a two-year period, Christopher Daniel sexually abused a child repeatedly. Time and again – beginning when his victim was just six years old – he preyed on her, touching her vagina through her underwear as they played computer games.

The abuse stopped only when Daniel’s young victim bravely spoke up. Police were called. Charges followed.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Yet, despite being found guilty of his sickening crimes during a three-day trial in December, Daniel – an 18-year-old dental student – walked free from court without a criminal record.

Sheriff Gerard Sinclair gave Christopher Daniel an absolute discharge.Sheriff Gerard Sinclair gave Christopher Daniel an absolute discharge.
Sheriff Gerard Sinclair gave Christopher Daniel an absolute discharge.

Sheriff Gerard Sinclair granted an absolute discharge, a decision that valued the interests of the accused over justice for his victim.

The victim was further let down by Scotland’s justice system last month when the Crown Office abandoned plans to appeal the Sheriff’s decision.

On Thursday, under pressure from the victim’s family, the Judicial Office released the sheriff’s report, detailing the reasoning behind his decision to allow a sex offender to walk free without a blemish on his record.

If this move was supposed to help us make sense of what appeared an unforgivably foolish ruling, it failed dismally.

Among the reasons – or, perhaps, we should consider them excuses – Sinclair gave for his decision was that the sexual assault was “the result of an entirely inappropriate curiosity of an emotionally naive teenager rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification”.

The sheriff further noted that Daniel appeared both “noticeably immature and socially awkward” and wrote that it was “fortunate that the complainer appeared to have suffered no injury or long-lasting effects”.

Reacting to Sinclair’s assertion that these offences have had no lasting impact, the young victim’s mother – quite understandably – asked how he could possibly know this. Nobody, she added, has at any point asked how her daughter is.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Sinclair went on to note that any recorded conviction for the offence would have serious consequences for the accused’s future career. Of course it damned well would have and so it damned well should have.

Without an absolute discharge, Daniel’s conviction would have meant his automatic addition to the sex offenders register.

Instead, Daniel is now free to continue his studies and fulfil his ambition of becoming a dentist. Sinclair may have considered this a reason to keep Daniel off the register. Others may believe that, in fact, the possibility of a child sex offender continuing with a career that will bring him into regular contact with children is a very good reason, indeed, for ensuring his inclusion on the register.

If Daniel’s bright career prospects are to be considered reason for leniency in this case, are we to infer that the victim might have had some justice if she’d been sexually assaulted by a young man who had failed his exams? That certainly appears to be the logical conclusion of the sheriff’s ruling.

Not only is Gerard Sinclair a sheriff, he is chief executive of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, a government-funded body whose role is to review and investigate cases where it is alleged that conviction or sentencing may represent a miscarriage of justice.

Regardless of the case which has made Sinclair a figure of such interest, the fact that he is both poacher and gamekeeper in our legal system is extraordinary.

Anyone who harbours concerns that our legal system is not as transparent as it should be – and I count myself among those who feel precisely this – will wonder how it can be that Sinclair is both empowered to make rulings in court and empowered to investigate and make judgment on the rulings of colleagues.

There has, of course, been a political outcry over Sinclair’s decision to allow a man who sexually abused a child to walk free from court.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But MSPs have pulled their punches. Questioned about the Daniel case in Holyrood, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon made the point that sentencing matters were for the judiciary “however controversial or difficult they may be for the public”.

It is certainly true that politicians cannot – and should not – have the power to overrule sentencing matters but, nonetheless, this is a case that demands a political response.

MSPs are elected to represent the interests of the people and it is in the interest of the people for our justice system to be transparent and fair.

There is nothing – other than convention – to prevent MSPs making a louder noise about Sinclair. There is nothing to prevent them from urging a full review of the case and there is nothing to prevent any of them from questioning his fitness to sit as a sheriff. They should be doing both of these things, loudly and clearly.

Sandy Brindley, chief executive of Scottish Rape Crisis, reacted to Sinclair’s decision with absolute clarity. It was hard to see, she said, any circumstances where absolute discharge was an appropriate sentence for the repeated sexual assault of a six-year-old girl.

And it was frustrating for victims of sexual offences, she added, when the criminal justice system appeared to place too much emphasis on what the impact of sentencing might be on the offender.

Yesterday a tabloid newspaper reported on an incident in which Sinclair exposed himself at a black tie dinner at Gleneagles in 2001.

At best, this was an appalling act of boorishness, but had anyone who witnessed the incident lodged a complaint with police, Sinclair could very easily have found himself being charged with public indecency and, if convicted, being placed on the sex offenders register.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But boys will be boys, eh? It’s all just a laugh and nobody got hurt.

I have some sympathy with the instinct of politicians who are wary about speaking out over judicial decisions.

But I’m bound to say that while 
Sinclair remains a sheriff (and, for that matter, chief executive of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission), he will continue to undermine faith in a legal system that we must be able to trust.

The Crown must reconsider its decision not to appeal the ruling in the Christopher Daniel case. And Gerard Sinclair should resign.