THOMAS MARSHALL FROM KELSO AND PEEBLES FACES COURT AFTER BREACHING SEX OFFENDER ORDER
In January 2015, Thomas Marshall, a convicted sex offender residing in Kelso and Peebles, found himself back in court after failing to adhere to the strict conditions of his Sex Offenders Register (SOR).Marshall, aged 67, was fined £300 at Selkirk Sheriff Court for neglecting to notify authorities within three days that he possessed a passport, a requirement mandated by his previous conviction and registration conditions.
This oversight was considered a breach of the Sexual Offenders Prevention Order (SOPO) that was imposed upon him following his criminal history.
Marshall’s criminal background is notably severe.
In 2008, he was sentenced to three years in prison after being convicted of engaging in sexual activities with a 15-year-old boy in an Edinburgh park.
His criminal record also includes possession of over 1,000 disturbing images of children, some depicting the sexual abuse of infants, which were discovered at a residence in Peebles during police investigations into an international paedophile ring.
As a result of these heinous crimes, Marshall was placed on the Sex Offenders Register indefinitely, requiring him to comply with various reporting obligations, including the declaration of any passports he held.
However, in this instance, he failed to report his passport possession within the stipulated three-day period.
Details of the breach emerged when police received information about Marshall’s passport last February.
Officers visited his home in Rennie Court, Kelso, to investigate the matter.
During the hearing, his defence lawyer, Iain Burke, explained that Marshall had not deliberately concealed his passport.
Burke stated that his client had not thoroughly read the information provided regarding the reporting requirements and that his mental state was somewhat unsettled following his previous conviction.
Burke emphasized, “He did not intend to hide the fact he had a passport and never used it.” Sheriff Peter Paterson acknowledged the seriousness of the breach but accepted the explanation provided by Marshall.
Ultimately, the court decided that a fine was an appropriate penalty for the offence, reflecting the importance of compliance with the conditions set out in the SOPO and the potential risks posed by non-compliance.
