ROBERT ANDERSON FROM DUNOON AND GLASGOW SENTENCED FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF YOUNG GIRLS
| Red Rose Database
Glasgow Dunoon Sexual Abuser
In a significant case heard at the High Court in Glasgow, Robert Anderson, a man with connections to both Dunoon and Glasgow, was sentenced to eight years in prison after being found guilty of multiple charges related to the sexual abuse of three young girls spanning from 1991 to 1999.
Anderson, whose photograph from the 1990s was presented during the trial, faced a court that did not take his crimes lightly. The presiding judge, Lord Armstrong, delivered a stern and detailed judgment, emphasizing the gravity of Anderson’s actions and the profound impact on his victims.
Lord Armstrong outlined that Anderson was convicted on five charges involving the calculated, manipulative, and predatory sexual abuse of three girls, all of whom were minors at the time of the offenses. The first girl was only between four and five years old when Anderson began abusing her. The second girl was between three and nine years old, while the third was between six and eight years old. The abuse occurred over nearly a decade, during which Anderson engaged in a disturbing pattern of sexual misconduct.
The court heard that Anderson’s abuse included inducing the girls to perform oral sex on him, digital vaginal penetration, and on one occasion, penile anal penetration. The judge noted that, with the exception of the last category, these acts were committed repeatedly and regularly throughout the 1990s, to the extent that the victims came to believe such behavior was normal. Furthermore, Anderson used threats against two of the girls to silence them, adding a layer of intimidation and control to his crimes.
During the proceedings, a victim impact statement was read, revealing the lasting emotional scars inflicted upon the victims. The judge acknowledged the evidence presented by all three women, highlighting the profound and potentially incalculable effects of Anderson’s conduct on their mental health and personal relationships. Lord Armstrong condemned Anderson for robbing these young girls of their innocence and subjecting them to experiences no child should endure.
In his sentencing remarks, Lord Armstrong considered Anderson’s background, including a criminal justice social work report. The report indicated that Anderson posed a moderate risk of re-offending, primarily due to his lack of remorse, refusal to accept responsibility, and apparent absence of empathy for his victims. However, the judge also recognized that these crimes were committed many years ago, and Anderson had no prior convictions or recent police attention. Notably, he had a commendable work record and served in the armed forces, factors that influenced the court’s decision.
Despite the disturbing nature of the crimes, the judge emphasized the importance of society’s condemnation of such conduct. He stated that Anderson’s actions warranted a custodial sentence, with no suitable alternative. Anderson was also ordered to comply with the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which will remain in effect indefinitely. The court’s clerk was instructed to provide him with the necessary notices.
Although the charges involved three different victims, the court viewed the conduct as a single course of criminal behavior. Consequently, Anderson’s sentence was imposed as a single cumulative term of eight years, backdated to August 21, 2013, when he was first detained in relation to these charges. The court’s decision underscores the seriousness with which the justice system treats sexual offenses against children, especially when committed by individuals in positions of trust.
Anderson, whose photograph from the 1990s was presented during the trial, faced a court that did not take his crimes lightly. The presiding judge, Lord Armstrong, delivered a stern and detailed judgment, emphasizing the gravity of Anderson’s actions and the profound impact on his victims.
Lord Armstrong outlined that Anderson was convicted on five charges involving the calculated, manipulative, and predatory sexual abuse of three girls, all of whom were minors at the time of the offenses. The first girl was only between four and five years old when Anderson began abusing her. The second girl was between three and nine years old, while the third was between six and eight years old. The abuse occurred over nearly a decade, during which Anderson engaged in a disturbing pattern of sexual misconduct.
The court heard that Anderson’s abuse included inducing the girls to perform oral sex on him, digital vaginal penetration, and on one occasion, penile anal penetration. The judge noted that, with the exception of the last category, these acts were committed repeatedly and regularly throughout the 1990s, to the extent that the victims came to believe such behavior was normal. Furthermore, Anderson used threats against two of the girls to silence them, adding a layer of intimidation and control to his crimes.
During the proceedings, a victim impact statement was read, revealing the lasting emotional scars inflicted upon the victims. The judge acknowledged the evidence presented by all three women, highlighting the profound and potentially incalculable effects of Anderson’s conduct on their mental health and personal relationships. Lord Armstrong condemned Anderson for robbing these young girls of their innocence and subjecting them to experiences no child should endure.
In his sentencing remarks, Lord Armstrong considered Anderson’s background, including a criminal justice social work report. The report indicated that Anderson posed a moderate risk of re-offending, primarily due to his lack of remorse, refusal to accept responsibility, and apparent absence of empathy for his victims. However, the judge also recognized that these crimes were committed many years ago, and Anderson had no prior convictions or recent police attention. Notably, he had a commendable work record and served in the armed forces, factors that influenced the court’s decision.
Despite the disturbing nature of the crimes, the judge emphasized the importance of society’s condemnation of such conduct. He stated that Anderson’s actions warranted a custodial sentence, with no suitable alternative. Anderson was also ordered to comply with the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which will remain in effect indefinitely. The court’s clerk was instructed to provide him with the necessary notices.
Although the charges involved three different victims, the court viewed the conduct as a single course of criminal behavior. Consequently, Anderson’s sentence was imposed as a single cumulative term of eight years, backdated to August 21, 2013, when he was first detained in relation to these charges. The court’s decision underscores the seriousness with which the justice system treats sexual offenses against children, especially when committed by individuals in positions of trust.