Schoolteacher who had sexual relationship with 15-year-old has sentence reduced

Lord Matthews

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2022] HCJAC 24
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Matthews

The appellant, NP, pled guilty to a contravention of section 42 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 and was given a headline sentence of 27 months.

The appeal was heard by Lord Doherty and Lord Matthews. Ogg, solicitor advocate, appeared for the appellant and McTaggart AD for the Crown.

Manipulative behaviour 

In December 2016, the appellant was an assistant housemistress at her school and was involved in the provision of pastoral care to students. She was approached by the complainer after she had become upset in a class and offered to respond to emails sent to her school email address outwith school hours. The appellant and the complainer developed a close personal relationship on the basis of their email correspondence, and they would often state that they loved each other. 

The appellant and complainer began to meet up regularly on Sundays from January 2017 onwards. At first the appellant would take the complainer to quiet locations where they would kiss and touch each other over their clothing but began performing consensual sexual acts with each other in March 2017. In July 2017 the complainer spent two nights at the appellant’s flat where they engaged in digital penetration and oral sex. The complainer often said that she wanted to tell her friends and family about her sexuality, but the appellant discouraged her, saying that people would discover their relationship. 

The relationship ended when the complainer went to university, however they kept in touch. In June 2020 the complainer broke off the relationship in a phone call, during which the appellant displayed manipulative behaviour and threatened to harm herself. This caused significant stress to the complainer, with the police becoming involved in September 2020 after she disclosed information to her doctor. 

Counsel for the appellant submitted that, while the offence was serious, this was the appellant’s first offence and in all the circumstances a non-custodial disposal would be appropriate. Her career, which had spanned over 20 years and had a positive impact on many young people, was now lost to her, and she had been having suicidal thoughts, as confirmed by her partner and her GP. 

High level grooming 

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Matthews began: “While each case has to be determined on its own merits, in a case of this nature involving intimate sexual contact, a custodial sentence will be well-nigh inevitable unless the circumstances are truly exceptional. That is not the case here.” 

He continued: “It is a not uncommon feature of cases like this that the offender is a person who is otherwise of good character. At the time of the offence the appellant was a mature woman and a very experienced teacher. The complainer had sought her assistance in her pastoral role so the position of trust was clear and indeed enhanced. Thereafter there was a significant degree of planning and a high level of grooming resulting in an improper intimate relationship, which lasted for a considerable time.” 

Considering any mitigating factors, Lord Matthews said: “The appellant engineered situations where she was alone with the complainer in her car, her home, and elsewhere. She knew it was wrong and could have taken steps to end the relationship at any time but chose not to. While the appellant has expressed remorse, we note that in speaking to the author of the Criminal Justice Social Work Report, she attributed a large measure of responsibility for what happened to the complainer, which is a subversion of the true position.” 

However, he concluded: “That having been said, there is force in the submission that the sentence was excessive. Having regard to all the circumstances, and bearing in mind the Definitive Guideline as a cross-check, we consider that the appropriate headline sentence would have been one of imprisonment for 21 months.” 

The appeal was therefore allowed to the extent of quashing the headline sentence in favour of the reduced custodial sentence. The new headline sentence of 21 months was reduced to 16 months’ imprisonment on account of the appellant’s early guilty plea.