Sentencing remarks have been published for Christopher Daniel, the dental student who was given an absolute discharge for a sexual assault on a young girl.

Sentencing remarks have been published for Christopher Daniel, the dental student who was given an absolute discharge for a sexual assault on a young girl.

View Reddit by 124876720View Source

What do you think?

0 points
Upvote Downvote


Leave a Reply
  1. It’s ok to touch kids if you’re shy and socially awkward then. Mention you have epilepsy too.


    ” Any sentence would mean that he would probably be unable to continue his university course”


    I’m sure his “considerable opprobrium” will ensure he doesn’t get to finish it anyway.

  2. “Scumbag who molested six year old girl over 2 years walks free despite pleading guilty as a result of middle class background and good career prospects”

    So, not really then. That headline painted an absolutely grim picture of what he did to the girl. The reality is far from great and should still probably have warranted punishment but good lord the papers love a good reach don’t they?

  3. The bit that makes me angry is:

    “It was fortunate that the complainer appeared to have suffered no injury or long lasting effects.”

    She’s still a kid. Nobody knows what effects this is going to have on her when she’s older, learning about her relationship with her body and embarking on relationships with others. An extremely rash and shortsighted comment and should not have been a factor in deciding to discharge.

  4. PF v Christopher Daniel

    At Dumbarton Sheriff Court, Sheriff Gerard Sinclair discharged absolutely Christopher Daniel after he was found guilty of sexual assault.

    Circumstances of the offence

    The circumstances of the offence were that the family of the complainer was friendly with that of the accused, and would visit each other from time to time. During visits the complainer liked playing with the accused, who had a computer in his room. When they played on the computer she would often sit on the accused’s knee. Several times during visits he touched her on her vagina, placing his hand over her vaginal area. His hand was cupped and he would press it against that area. Whenever he did this she had clothes on, either leggings or tights or pants.

    The complainer’s father described the accused as an intelligent, but quiet boy who seemed very young and immature. In the course of a meeting between the complainer’s mother, the accused’s parents and the accused, he initially denied, but later admitted, his actions. The complainer’s parents agreed not to contact the police at that time understanding that the accused was to obtain professional help, to which he was agreeable. However, subsequently believing that he was backtracking on, and changing the nature of, his admissions they decided to contact the police.

    Sheriff’s disposal
    The Sheriff considered all the relevant factors, including the nature of the offence, the impact on the victim and others affected by the case and the particular circumstances of the accused.

    As to the circumstances of the offence, the Sheriff considered that the actions, occurring on more than one occasion could not be classed as spontaneous. However, there had been no attempt to escalate the nature of the offending. In light of the evidence as to the immaturity of the accused, and the nature of the discussion during which he admitted his actions, the Sheriff considered the offence to be the result of an entirely inappropriate curiosity of an emotionally naive teenager rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification. The accused had appeared both noticeably immature and socially awkward, features confirmed by other evidence in the case. It was fortunate that the complainer appeared to have suffered no injury or long lasting effects.

    It was clear that the complainer’s family held no ill will against the accused’s family. They indicated in their evidence that they were not seeking any form of retribution. Their main focus appeared to be a wish to have the accused admit his culpability and address his behaviour. The accused’s family were clearly a caring and supportive one who the sheriff considered would, in light of his verdict, wish to provide whatever support was necessary for their son.

    The accused was a 17 year old, first offender. He had suffered considerable opprobrium, having been temporarily suspended from his university course. Since the matter had come to light, the accused had suffered seizures and had been diagnosed with epilepsy. During the trial he presented as someone who, with appropriate support and guidance, could become a valuable contributor to society. The Sheriff considered it unlikely that he would ever appear in court as an accused again. Any recorded conviction for this offence would have serious consequences in terms of the accused`s future career. On the authorities, this was also a relevant factor in deciding how to deal with the case. Any sentence would mean that he would probably be unable to continue his university course. The notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 would automatically apply to a conviction for this offence unless an absolute discharge was granted.

    Considering all of these factors, the Sheriff reached the conclusion that justice could be served in this case by taking the wholly exceptional decision not to pass sentence and to grant an absolute discharge.

  5. This in no means diminishes what he done. Nothing to say he hadn’t yet got the opportunity to escalate, we’re talking about a fuckin 17 year old touching up a primary school kid.

    Do not minimise it because she was wearing clothes!

  6. It’s an interesting one, and it makes sense now there’s a fuller picture. I don’t like how they’re justifying it by painting him as “immature” though. He’s studying fucking dentistry, he’s obviously not simple.

  7. given that folk are sent to jail (or at least given significantly less lenient sentences) every day for relatively irrelevant shit like theft, this still has the stench of a hundred rats about it and that judge should be getting raked over the coals just now

  8. Given the nature of the crime that took place and for which he was found guilty I still can’t get my head around why he hasn’t been placed on the sex offenders register. A sexual crime has taken place and for the purposes of child protection then I can see no reason why he shouldn’t.

  9. It quite simply unbelievable what paedophiles like this are getting away with in Scotland today, makes you really wonder about the Scottish justice system. I don’t think any right-minded person would say this so-and-so didn’t deserve a hefty jail sentence at the very least.

  10. Ok, lots of info here….

    However let’s break it down to the key component – a 17 year old touched the vagina of a 6 year old. More than once.

    17 year olds in this enlightened internet age touching up a child for curiosity? Fucking jog on.

    It’s beast behaviour.

    I have read the reports underpinning the leniency shown here. Tell you what, that judge has some balls on him taking that chance on this boy not reoffending.

    I also find the reaction of the child’s parents quite strange. Quite strange.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





Succesful entrepreneurs………what are some lessons you’ve learned that most people don’t talk about?

What is so good about SAP that companies fall over themselves to spend millions on their ERP?