FRANCIS ARNOLD FROM MONTROSE ESCAPES PRISON AFTER SEXUAL ABUSE CONVICTION
| Red Rose Database
Montrose Child Sexual Abuser
A 67-year-old man named Francis Arnold, who resides in Arbroath but was involved in an incident at a property in Montrose, has been spared a custodial sentence after being convicted of sexually abusing a child. The incident took place over a period spanning from March 2017 to May of the previous year, during which Arnold engaged in inappropriate conduct towards the young victim.
According to court records, Arnold repeatedly seized the child on multiple occasions, during which he pulled the youngster onto his knee. It was during these moments that Arnold inappropriately touched the child and also exposed himself, actions that led to his conviction. The case was heard at Dundee Sheriff Court, where a jury reached a majority verdict finding Arnold guilty of the charges.
The court was informed that Arnold maintains his innocence, claiming that there was no sexual intent behind his actions. He insists that his behavior was merely “horseplay,” involving tickling and cuddling, and denies any sexual connotations. Despite his claims, the jury's verdict clearly rejected his version of events.
Following the conviction, Arnold returned to the dock to be sentenced by Sheriff Alastair Carmichael. Prior to sentencing, social work reports were prepared to assess his circumstances. Arnold’s defense solicitor, Douglas Fraser, stated that Arnold’s family had disowned him as a result of the offence, leaving no hope for reconciliation. Fraser also mentioned that Arnold’s behavior was more or less typical of his usual conduct, emphasizing that the acts involved tickling and cuddling rather than anything sexual.
Fraser acknowledged Arnold’s acceptance of the verdict and clarified that there were no instructions to appeal the conviction. He requested the court to consider a non-custodial sentence, citing Arnold’s age and his status as a first-time offender as mitigating factors. The solicitor argued that these circumstances warranted leniency.
In response, Sheriff Carmichael acknowledged that such offences typically warrant a prison sentence. However, after considering the specific details of the case, he decided that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate. Arnold was sentenced to perform 200 hours of unpaid community work, and he was placed on the sex offenders register. Additionally, he was subjected to supervision for a period of three years, along with a conduct requirement for the same duration, aimed at monitoring his behavior and ensuring compliance with the court’s directives.
According to court records, Arnold repeatedly seized the child on multiple occasions, during which he pulled the youngster onto his knee. It was during these moments that Arnold inappropriately touched the child and also exposed himself, actions that led to his conviction. The case was heard at Dundee Sheriff Court, where a jury reached a majority verdict finding Arnold guilty of the charges.
The court was informed that Arnold maintains his innocence, claiming that there was no sexual intent behind his actions. He insists that his behavior was merely “horseplay,” involving tickling and cuddling, and denies any sexual connotations. Despite his claims, the jury's verdict clearly rejected his version of events.
Following the conviction, Arnold returned to the dock to be sentenced by Sheriff Alastair Carmichael. Prior to sentencing, social work reports were prepared to assess his circumstances. Arnold’s defense solicitor, Douglas Fraser, stated that Arnold’s family had disowned him as a result of the offence, leaving no hope for reconciliation. Fraser also mentioned that Arnold’s behavior was more or less typical of his usual conduct, emphasizing that the acts involved tickling and cuddling rather than anything sexual.
Fraser acknowledged Arnold’s acceptance of the verdict and clarified that there were no instructions to appeal the conviction. He requested the court to consider a non-custodial sentence, citing Arnold’s age and his status as a first-time offender as mitigating factors. The solicitor argued that these circumstances warranted leniency.
In response, Sheriff Carmichael acknowledged that such offences typically warrant a prison sentence. However, after considering the specific details of the case, he decided that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate. Arnold was sentenced to perform 200 hours of unpaid community work, and he was placed on the sex offenders register. Additionally, he was subjected to supervision for a period of three years, along with a conduct requirement for the same duration, aimed at monitoring his behavior and ensuring compliance with the court’s directives.