GLASGOW SEX OFFENDER GRAEME SCOTT SENTENCED TO 14 YEARS FOR REPEATED SEXUAL OFFENCES

At the High Court in Glasgow, a serious case involving Graeme Scott culminated in a significant sentencing by Lord Arthurson, who handed down an extended term of 14 years after Scott pleaded guilty to multiple grave offences. These crimes included threats to reveal illicit images, sending indecent communications, and making threats of sexual violence.

During the court proceedings, Lord Arthurson emphasized the severity of Scott’s misconduct, which involved persistent and elaborate threats, some of which included sexual remarks that were heard by the victim’s family members. The judge highlighted that Scott’s actions were not isolated but part of a pattern of disturbing behaviour that caused considerable distress and harm to his victims.

It was also noted that Scott’s criminal history includes a prior conviction for sexual offences with similar characteristics. Recent psychological assessments concluded that he poses a high risk of reoffending, with little insight or remorse for his actions. The court took these factors into account when determining the appropriate sentence, which was structured into two parts: a custodial sentence of six years, backdated to December 2022, and an extended supervision period of eight years following his release.

Furthermore, Scott is now subject to indefinite notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This measure reflects the court’s recognition of the serious nature of his crimes and the ongoing risk he poses to the public. The judge underscored that only a substantial custodial and extended sentence could serve justice and ensure public safety.

In delivering the sentencing statement, Lord Arthurson detailed the legal proceedings and the guilty pleas entered by Scott on various indictments. He explained that Scott had appeared before the court on multiple occasions, with pleas entered in September and December 2022, relating to charges under the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016, and the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009.

The judge reviewed extensive reports, including a criminal justice social work assessment and a forensic clinical psychology report, which confirmed Scott’s high risk of reoffending. The reports also indicated that Scott demonstrated minimal insight into his behaviour and lacked genuine remorse. His offending was characterized by impulsivity, deviant sexual arousal, misogyny, and disinhibition, often exacerbated by alcohol consumption.

Lord Arthurson detailed the nature of Scott’s offences, which involved weeks of sustained threatening calls and messages, some containing sexual acts and remarks about the victim’s daughter. The offending extended to sending obscene images of the victim’s 11-year-old daughter and threatening to disclose these images, culminating in obscene phone calls that included threats of sexual violence.

The court also considered Scott’s previous criminal record, which includes a series of five charges of threatening and abusive behaviour online, many with sexual and racial aggravations. Victims ranged in age from 13 to 16, and Scott showed no responsibility for his actions, instead engaging in victim blaming.

In his judgment, Lord Arthurson emphasized that Scott’s behaviour demonstrated a high level of danger, especially given his history and the nature of his recent offences. The court acknowledged that Scott’s continued offending, despite prior convictions, necessitated a very lengthy custodial sentence combined with a supervision extension to mitigate the risk of further harm.

He explained that the sentence would be divided into two parts: a determinate custodial term of three years for one indictment, and a combined extended sentence of 14 years for the other, which includes six years of imprisonment and an eight-year extension period under supervision. The court also confirmed that Scott would be subject to indefinite notification requirements, ensuring ongoing monitoring of his activities post-release.

In conclusion, Lord Arthurson stressed that only such a substantial sentence could adequately reflect the gravity of Scott’s offences and protect the community from his dangerous behaviour. The court’s decision aims to serve justice, deter future offending, and safeguard vulnerable individuals from further harm.