Demand for law to be reviewed after student who attacked six-year-old girl walks free from court with no criminal record

Calls have been made for the Scottish Law Commission to review the test of undue leniency after a teenager found guilty of attacking a six-year-old girl over a period of more than two years walked free from court with no punishment.

The test was identified as one of the reasons that the Crown Office did not pursue an appeal against the sentence of the teenager, who does not have a criminal record despite being convicted of sexual assault against a minor.

Christopher Daniel, an 18-year-old dental student from Glasgow, was found guilty of repeated attacks on his infant school-aged victim but was granted an absolute discharge by sheriff Gerard Sinclair.

The teenager, who was aged between 15 and 17 at the time, will not be placed on the sex offenders' register as a result.

Liam Kerr, Scottish Conservative shadow justice secretary, has written to Humza Yousaf, his counterpart in government, asking him to empower the Scottish Law Commission to review this test, and “ensure it remains fit for purpose”.

In the letter, Mr Kerr wrote that “the problem lies ... with the test of ‘undue leniency’ which may be restricting the Crown Office’s ability to appeal sentences it considers to be overly lenient”.

“When a convicted child abuser walks free from court with no punishment, not even a criminal record, the system has failed," he added.

“While this outcome has been utterly devastating for the victim and her family, we must, at least try to ensure that no one else is treated in this appalling way.”

Daniel was granted the absolute discharge by Mr Sinclair for various reasons including his perceived emotional naivety. Mr Sinclair also noted the victim “appeared to have suffered no injury or long-lasting effects”.

Prosecutors decided that the sentence could not be appealed by the Crown Office on the grounds of undue leniency because the case does not meet the legal test required.

After the verdict was reached at Dumbarton Sheriff Court following a three-day trial, a Judicial Office for Scotland statement said any recorded conviction for the offence would have “serious consequences in terms of the accused’s future career” and any sentence would mean Daniel would “probably be unable to continue his university course”.

At First Minister’s Questions in January, Tory MSP Mr Kerr told Nicola Sturgeon the decision had ”devastated” the child’s family.

Ms Sturgeon said she understood concerns surrounding a ”wholly exceptional“ court decision to grant an absolute discharge.

However, more than 44,000 people have now signed a petition started by Marisa Keegan, who wrote: ”Our system is putting criminals’ careers before our children’s welfare. What kind of world do we live in that this is seen as an acceptable decision by the court?”

An investigation by Scottish TV channel STV found the victim’s family believed too much emphasis was given to the student’s middle-class background, strong educational attainment and career prospects.

The girl’s mother said she thought she would be handed a bigger sentence if she shoplifted something from a supermarket.

“How is that justice? How does this teach anything to anybody that’s committing this crime?” she added. “My idea isn’t that he gets strung up and we throw him in prison and we lock the key away, but this is what the sex offenders’ register is for. It is to protect children.”

A Scottish government spokesperson said: “The Scottish government has supported relevant agencies in taking robust action against those who commit sexual offences.

“We have strengthened the criminal law on sexual offences, increased support to victims organisations and encouraged more victims to report their experiences.

“While the law in this area is kept under review, it is worth noting this is a similar test to other legal jurisdictions across the UK.

“As the Cabinet Secretary said during a recent Parliamentary debate, the Scottish government will raise the issue in future dialogue with the Scottish Law Commission.”

Additional reporting by agencies