ANDREW DUNCAN FROM MONTROSE ESCAPES JAIL DESPITE CHILD ABUSE IMAGE CHARGES

In November 2016, a man from Montrose named Andrew Duncan faced serious allegations related to possession of child abuse images and extreme pornography. Despite the gravity of the charges, Duncan managed to avoid imprisonment after a trial held at Dundee Sheriff Court.

His case drew significant attention due to the circumstances surrounding the discovery of illicit material on his computer, which was seized during a police raid on his family home in Montrose last year. The raid was initiated following a tip-off that prompted law enforcement officers to investigate the residence shared by Duncan with his parents and siblings.

During the investigation, police confiscated multiple computers belonging to Andrew Duncan and his brother Steven Duncan, who works at a toy shop. The forensic analysis of Steven’s computers revealed a substantial collection of child abuse images, leading to his conviction last month. Steven Duncan admitted guilt and was subsequently sentenced to a community payback order and placed on the sex offenders register.

In contrast, Andrew Duncan vehemently denied any involvement in downloading or possessing the indecent material found on his devices. He claimed that the files were not his and suggested that the presence of such images was due to his participation in an “ethical hacking” course at Abertay University. Duncan argued that the software found on his computer, which is often used by internet sex offenders to erase digital footprints, was part of his coursework and not evidence of criminal activity.

However, the prosecution presented evidence that cast doubt on Duncan’s claims. Forensic experts discovered file cleansing software on his computer, which is typically employed to conceal illicit activity. Moreover, the court heard that some of the files had been downloaded to Duncan’s computer in his bedroom at around 2 a.m. on a specific night, raising suspicions about his involvement.

During the trial, Crown prosecutor Vicki Bell summarized the case for the jury, noting that Duncan’s demeanor while giving evidence was “obnoxious” and that he appeared indifferent to the seriousness of the charges. She remarked, “He didn’t seem fussed at all,” which she considered abnormal given the nature of the allegations.

Miss Bell further explained that Duncan had told police during interviews that his brother Steven had not had access to his computer for a long time, especially not in 2015. Yet, the evidence showed that indecent images had been previewed on Duncan’s computer during that year. When questioned, Duncan could not provide a satisfactory explanation for this.

Prosecutors argued that the only logical explanation was that Duncan himself was responsible for the images, unless he was suggesting that Steven was sitting in his room at 2:15 a.m. watching child pornography, which was deemed unlikely since Steven had his own computer and collection of such material.

Defense lawyer Nick Whelan urged the jury to dismiss the emotional aspects of the case and focus solely on the facts. He insisted that Duncan was unaware of his brother’s activities and had no knowledge of the illicit files on his computer. Whelan pointed out that Steven Duncan had pleaded guilty to possessing a significant number of similar images, which was an unexpected development.

After deliberation, the jury—comprising eight men and seven women—took only an hour to reach a verdict. They found Duncan guilty by majority of the child abuse image charges and unanimously of possessing extreme pornography.

In sentencing, Sheriff Lorna Drummond QC imposed a community payback order requiring Duncan to complete 240 hours of unpaid work, along with a year of supervision. Additionally, she ordered that Duncan be placed on the sex offenders register for one year. The sheriff emphasized the seriousness of the case, stating, “The jury found you guilty of these three charges. Having regard to the reports and the evidence about the number of images and their category, I can deal with this by way of a community payback order.”