Pervert has jail time cut

Verdict following appeal

A pervert who admitted sexually assaulting a woman while she slept has had his jail term reduced.

Cameron Jackson, 21, from Strathaven’s Glassford Road, was sentenced to two years behind bars in March by Sheriff Thomas Millar when he appeared at Hamilton Sheriff Court.

He was also placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years but appealed the length of his imprisonment.

Following a hearing, the 24-month sentence was quashed with an 18-month jail sentence imposed in its place.

Jackson will remain on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years and subject to a non-harassment order.

The sheriff court previously heard that Jackson – who only ever had a platonic relationship with his victim – turned up drunk at he woman’s door in the early hours of May 13 last year despite her initially telling him not to as she was feeling unwell.

He fell asleep clothed under the duvet of the victim’s bed.

She was lying on top of the duvet covered by a blanket wearing her pyjamas.

The woman awoke some time later feeling discomfort in an intimate area after Jackson had inserted a finger.

Agents representing Jackson for his appeal cited a number of mitigating factors, including the fact he was intoxicated and he was extremely remorseful for his actions, and argued that the two-year sentence was excessive.

The court document on proceedings states: “It was accepted that this offence represented a gross breach of trust but it was pointed out to us that immediately after the offence and since then the appellant has expressed remorse and has apologised for his actions.

“The appellant is aged 21 and we are told that he has had a good work record and the job that he formerly held is still being kept available for him by his employer.

“It was submitted that the criminal justice social work report was relatively positive.”

Delivering his conclusion Lord Menzies said: “We have considered all of the mitigatory features but we remain of the view that this was a gross breach of trust by the appellant and despite his position of remorse and apology and his apparent empathy with the victim, it cannot be categorised as an error on the part of the sheriff that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

“However, we are persuaded that the starting point of 30 months selected by the sheriff having regard to all of the factors to which we have referred was excessive and accordingly we shall quash the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the sheriff and substitute a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, that being discounted from a starting point of 24 months to reflect the early plea of guilty.

“The other aspects of the sheriff ’s sentence will remain.”