RONALD SMART FROM CASTLE DOUGLAS SENTENCED FOR CASHING IN ON OBSCENE FILMS

In August 2011, the town of Castle Douglas found itself at the center of a disturbing case involving Ronald Smart, a local newsagent with a troubling criminal history. Smart, aged 42 at the time, was convicted of possessing sexually explicit videos and DVDs with the intent to distribute them, marking a second such conviction in his criminal record.

Smart’s illicit activities reportedly generated an estimated £20,000 in profits through a mail-order operation that he operated from his residence in Castle Douglas. The authorities uncovered that he had been involved in this illegal enterprise over a span of more than two years, from February 2005 to November 2007. The scale of his operation and the financial gains made from it drew significant attention during his court proceedings.

At Kirkcudbright Sheriff Court, the case was heard with considerable seriousness. The court was told that Smart had previously been convicted in 2004 for child pornography offenses, which resulted in a four-month prison sentence and a seven-year registration on the sex offenders’ register. Despite this prior conviction, Smart resumed his activities, continuing to peddle obscene films even while appealing his initial conviction. He ultimately served his second prison term in 2006, but his criminal pursuits persisted.

During the recent hearing, Sheriff Shirley Foran addressed the court, emphasizing the gravity of Smart’s actions. She stated, “There is no other option but a custodial sentence,” indicating that prison was the only appropriate response given the nature of his offenses. The sheriff also noted that Smart was being investigated under the Proceeds of Crime Act, with authorities having confiscated £23,000 from him and ordered him to pay an additional £9,800 in taxes related to his illegal earnings.

Smart’s defense lawyer, Bill McVicar, challenged the prosecution’s figure of £20,000, arguing that there was no need for his client to be jailed. He suggested that a community payback order and a period of probation would serve the public interest better. However, Sheriff Foran dismissed these arguments, stating, “It would be fair to say that you are no direct risk or harm to the public,” but she also expressed concern about the potential harm to individuals who might have come across the material accidentally or been affected by it.

She further criticized Smart’s attitude, remarking, “You have shown complete disregard of the law after being charged previously for a similar offence.” The court sentenced him to four months in prison, reflecting the seriousness of his repeated offenses. The judge also highlighted that Smart’s previous conviction and ongoing criminal behavior demonstrated a blatant disregard for legal boundaries and public safety.

As the case concluded, it was revealed that Smart was also under investigation for his financial dealings, with the possibility of further penalties to be announced in October. The case serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing efforts by authorities to clamp down on illegal distribution of obscene material and the importance of enforcing laws designed to protect the community from such harmful activities.