CAGED SCOTS SEX PREDATOR CLAIMED BEING SPIKED CAUSED HIM TO LOSE CONTROL OF HIS BODY AND RAPE WOMAN AFTER NIGHT OUT
A man charged with raping a woman has been sentenced to prison after claiming he was spiked during a Christmas night out, which allegedly caused him to lose control of his body.Ciaran Davidson, aged 25, received a prison term of five years and four months for the sexual assault of a woman at his residence in Edinburgh four years ago.
During his trial held earlier this year at the Scottish high court, the jury considered a special legal defence presented by Davidson’s legal team.
They argued the case under the doctrine of automatism, asserting that Davidson was not responsible for his actions because he experienced a total loss of bodily control, rendering him unable to regulate his behavior.
The court was informed that the assault took place after Davidson and the woman had been out at a nightclub earlier in the evening.
The victim, a university graduate, testified that she was asleep when she woke to find Davidson engaging in non-consensual sex with her.
The judge delivered the sentence after considering the evidence and the defence’s argument, which is a rarely invoked plea in Scottish courts, meant to establish innocence by proving the accused lacked voluntary control over their actions at the time of the offence.
—————————————————————————————————— Sentencing statement —————————————————————————————————— At the High Court in Edinburgh, Judge David Young imposed a sentence of 5 years and 4 months on Ciaran Davidson.
The offender had been found guilty of rape.
On sentencing Judge Young told Davidson: "Ciaran Davidson, the jury found you guilty of rape.
I understand that you accept committing the acts.
However, you maintain that this would not have happened if your drink had not been spiked.
You will understand that I have to sentence you based on the jury's verdict.
That involved rejection of the automatism defence.
You had both been out with friends.
You returned home together in the early hours.
After a discussion, the complainer went to her bed.
She gave evidence that she woke up to find you in the bed behind her, in the act of raping her.
It is acknowledged by your counsel that this took place in the flat that was her home at the time, which is an aggravating factor.
The complainer provided a statement setting out the effects on her.
She described physical pain at the time but also ongoing mental and emotional effects.
She described terror immediately after the event.
That was followed by debilitating anxiety accompanied by flashbacks.
These continue to affect many areas of her life to this day.
I turn to mitigation.
You have been of good character with no previous convictions.
I have seen a range of references.
All of these speak in very positive terms about your character and behaviour.
The writers emphasise that the offence is out of kilter with the person they know.
I further accept that your remorse was immediate and genuine.
Overall, there is strong evidence that this offence stands out as an exceptional event that contrasts with your normal behaviour.
That is reflected in a positive Justice Social Work report.
You are assessed at medium risk of reconviction for sexual offences using RM2000.
However, the author emphasises that this is only due to your age.
Using stable dynamic factors you show no significant or imminent risk.
I come now to address your defence of automatism.
This was argued forcefully at trial.
Automatism requires to show a total alienation of reason amounting to a complete loss of self-control.
The jury clearly rejected that defence in terms of charge 2.
I heard evidence at trial relating to automatism.
I will not narrate the evidence here in full detail.
In support of automatism I heard that there was an opportunity for a third party to spike the last drink you had, in the belief that the complainer would drink it.
I heard your evidence that you felt dissociated after drinking it.
I heard that you woke up in the complainer's bed without knowing what had happened to anger her.
I heard evidence from you and your mother about your behaviour after your arrest and in subsequent days.
There was expert evidence from a pharmacologist.
Dr Skett gave evidence about the results of the test that you supplied to him.
He stated that the test result was not clear.
He was not convinced that the test strip had worked.
He said that there was a possibility that there was no benzodiazepine at all in the urine sample.
If there was, he could not speak to the precise strength or to the particular drug.
He explained the general effects of diazepam, both in isolation and when combined with alcohol.
These included drowsiness, clumsiness, fatigue and confusion.
There could also be blackouts.
This means that a person could do an act but not remember it afterwards.
A blackout is not the same as carrying out an act unconsciously, like sleepwalking.
It is not the same as losing the ability to reason, or control of actions.
In many ways the effects of diazepam that Dr Skett described can be similar to the effects of alcohol.
You gave evidence that you were feeling strange before you boarded the bus, and then on the bus.
However, you described a lucid interval once you had arrived home when you spoke to the complainer.
That lasted half an hour.
You went to bed and woke up when the complainer shouted at you.
You say you do not have any memory of what happened immediately before that.
Shortly afterwards you composed a lengthy and comprehensible text.
You said that was during a second lucid moment.
When the police arrived soon after you were able to answer both their initial questions in the flat and a series of wellbeing questions in the police office.
You were able to walk normally from the flat to the police vehicle.
Having examined all of these circumstances, I can place little weight in sentencing on the evidence that you may have been affected by another drug in addition to the alcohol that you took voluntarily.
The Young Persons' Guidelines do not apply to you.
I nevertheless have to take into consideration your age of 22 at the time.
This means that I have to consider that young persons are generally less able to exercise good judgement when making decisions.
However, your defence to this case was that your drink was spiked without your knowledge.
You state that you have no memory of your actions towards the complainer in her bedroom.
You have not presented in evidence a decision where you exercised poor judgment due to your youth.
Therefore there is again little weight that I can place on this factor.
Turning to sentencing, first I will impose a Non Harassment Order that you do not contact or communicate with the complainer.
That will be indefinite.
The only sentence I can impose, is custody.
It will be backdated to the date of your remand on 20 February this year.
The sentence will be one of 5 years and 4 months.
As a result the registration period that I explained when you were remanded will be indefinite."
