DOUGLAS SINCLAIR SENTENCED IN PERTH FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES INVOLVING UNDERAGE BOY

In June 2018, a disturbing case emerged involving Douglas Sinclair, a 32-year-old man from Perth, who was convicted of engaging in sexual activities with a minor in an abandoned building located within the grounds of the Murray Royal Infirmary in Perth. Sinclair, who was married at the time, admitted to having sexual contact with a teenage boy, who falsely claimed online that he was 18 years old. The incident came to light after the young victim was involved in an incident at his school, during which he used a chat website to communicate with Sinclair and other individuals, engaging in sexual acts.

The police investigation uncovered Sinclair’s DNA on a curtain at the scene of the crime, although he initially denied any involvement when questioned by authorities. The court proceedings at Perth Sheriff Court revealed that Sinclair had committed the offense on at least one occasion between August 2015 and January 2016, within the derelict premises of the hospital grounds. The court heard that Sinclair’s actions were part of a pattern of predatory behavior directed at a vulnerable minor.

During sentencing, Sheriff Gillian Wade expressed serious concerns about Sinclair’s risk of reoffending, citing his attitude towards the crime and the nature of the offense. Sheriff Wade stated, “Given your assessment as being at very high risk of sexual re-conviction, your attitude to the crime and the nature of the offence, there is no alternative to custody. It’s deeply concerning you are not accepting all your guilt to the extent it might be accepted and you seek to blame the victim, who was a child.”

However, the case was later appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh. The appellate judges, Lord Menzies and Lord Glennie, reviewed the sentence and found that Sheriff Wade’s decision was “excessive” and based on a misapprehension of Sinclair’s early release provisions. They noted that Sinclair’s original sentence was a four-year term, which had been reduced from a five-year starting point due to his guilty plea. The extension period of 18 months, which relates to the period Sinclair would be on license after release, was also considered.

Lord Menzies explained that the sheriff’s interpretation of the early release rules was flawed, leading to an overly harsh sentence. As a result, the appellate court quashed the original four-year custodial sentence and replaced it with a three-year term, which was a reduction reflecting Sinclair’s early plea. Despite this reduction, the court decided to maintain the 18-month extension period, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the potential risk Sinclair poses. The final judgment underscores the importance of proportionate sentencing in cases involving sexual offenses against minors, especially when the offender’s attitude and risk factors are taken into account.