Appellant: Paterson, solicitor advocate; Paterson Bell

Respondent: Hughes, AD; Crown Agent

24 January 2013

[1] In this case the appellant, now aged 56, sodomised his son aged 4 throughout his childhood until the age of 12. He also carried out lewd and libidinous practices with his son during that period. The appellant also sexually abused and raped his daughter aged 3 throughout her childhood until the age of 10. Lewd and libidinous practices were also carried out with her during that period. As the trial judge notes at page 7 of his report, the appellant appeared to regard his children as sexual playthings rather than his children to be loved and nurtured.

[2] In our opinion, this was an horrific catalogue of abuse inflicted on both the appellant's young children over a protracted period of time. The effect on the children has been seriously detrimental and long-lasting, involving taking drugs and an attempted suicide, all as detailed in the judge's report. The appellant's abuse of his position of trust as father and guardian of the children was appalling.

[3] Before us today it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the cumulo sentence imposed was excessive for several reasons. One reason was that it was outwith the range of sentences considered appropriate for this type of offence. Secondly, 23 years had elapsed since the last offence, which was a considerable length of time. There had been no further trouble during that period, and that was an important factor when assessing the risk. Thirdly, the appellant had suffered ill-health which, together with his age, tended to point to a reduction in the risk of reoffending. Fourthly the appellant had remarried and was supported by his new wife and daughter.

[4] We have carefully considered the submissions made by Mr Paterson on behalf of the appellant. Having regard to the point made by Mr Paterson about the period of time which has elapsed since the offences were committed, the absence of any further offending, the appellant's age, health and the supportive family, whilst we acknowledge that there is a significant risk of further reoffending which cannot be ignored, nevertheless we accept that that risk is lower than it would have been had the appellant been sentenced within a few years of the offences. In this context we refer to the observations of Lord Carloway in Greig v HM Advocate 2012 HCJAC 127. For those reasons we have been persuaded that the sentence imposed was excessive. We shall accordingly quash the sentence of 14 years and substitute therefor a sentence of 12 years.

lin