BRAIN BALL FROM OLD KILPATRICK SENTENCED FOR CHILD ABUSE IMAGE POSSESSION IN DUMBARTON

In July 2015, Brian Ball, a 60-year-old resident of Thistleneuk in Old Kilpatrick, faced serious criminal charges related to the possession of indecent images of minors. The case was heard at Dumbarton Sheriff Court, where the severity of his actions was thoroughly examined. A sheriff had previously described the number of images held by Ball as being “hundreds or thousands,” highlighting the extensive nature of his offenses.

Ball pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possessing indecent images of children and taking or allowing the taking of such images between October 2005 and May of the following year. Additionally, he admitted to possessing extreme pornographic material that depicted, in explicit and realistic detail, acts involving sexual activity between a human and an animal. These allegations paint a disturbing picture of the material found in his possession.

During the court proceedings, Ball appeared before Sheriff William Gallacher, with his legal representative, Gail Campbell, presenting arguments on his behalf. Campbell explained that Ball was experiencing several medical issues that could potentially hinder his ability to perform unpaid work, although she suggested that light duties might be feasible. The court was made aware of Ball’s stance during the investigation, where he appeared to deny responsibility for the images, claiming they were not his responsibility. This attitude was noted by the sheriff, who expressed concern over Ball’s apparent refusal to accept full accountability.

Sheriff Gallacher emphasized the gravity of the offense, stating, “The offence to which you pleaded guilty is a serious one. It is not an incident which concerns you and no one else. There is harm that is caused to a wide variety of people over a period of time.” The sheriff also pointed out that the images in question were not just a few but numbered in the hundreds or thousands, and Ball’s dismissive attitude made it difficult to consider alternative sanctions.

As part of his sentence, Ball was ordered to complete 160 hours of unpaid work within a six-month period. Furthermore, he was placed under supervision for a duration of two years, during which his behavior and compliance would be monitored closely. The court’s decision reflects the serious concern over the proliferation of such harmful material and the importance of holding offenders accountable to protect the community.

Earlier in June 2015, the case had been adjourned to allow further discussions between Ball and social workers. During that hearing, his lawyer requested a continuation, citing Ball’s reluctance to accept responsibility and his claims that the images were not his. Sheriff Gallacher warned that the options for sentencing were limited given Ball’s stance, reiterating the gravity of the situation. The court scheduled the sentencing for June 10, providing additional time for the legal representatives to negotiate a possible plea in mitigation, but the case ultimately proceeded with the guilty plea and subsequent sentencing in July.