Dangerous predator sentenced for raping six females
Sentenced in December 2015 to 13 years and 5 months imprisonment with an Order for Life Long Restriction in relation to domestic offending dating back to 1998, involving seven victims in the Dumfries area.
Three victims told his trial at the High Court in Glasgow that he laughed after raping them. He beat another woman and controlled her to the point she need to ask his permission before she acted.
HMA v IAN DAVID THOMSON
At the High Court in Glasgow on 22 December 2014, Judge John Beckett QC sentenced Ian Thomson to 13 years and six months imprisonment and imposed an Order for Lifelong Restriction after the accused was convicted of raping six women.
On sentencing, Judge Beckett made the following statement in court:
“Ian David Thomson, I have carefully considered the Criminal Justice Social Work Report and the Risk Assessment Report.
I have had regard to everything that has been said on your behalf both today by Mr Paterson and by Mr McAra at the conclusion of your trial.
I take account of your age and the age you were when you committed some of these offences and the passage of time between commission and sentencing. I take account of your record of previous convictions and note that you have no previous convictions of significant gravity and none on indictment.
The position is very different now. You have been convicted of twenty two charges covering the period from 2000-2013.
Many of these crimes merit substantial punishment and you and others must be deterred from committing crimes of violence and sexual violence towards women.
In your case, the protection of the public is an important consideration.
You have been convicted of raping six different women, three of whom were under 16 when you raped them. The evidence led in your trial shows that you were able to identify and form relationships with several women most of whom were vulnerable in one way or another.
You could appear charming and considerate to your victims before becoming very controlling, often using violence to intimidate your partners into submission. Charge 43 is an example of you opportunistically raping a vulnerable girl of 15 whom you had only just met.
Charge 28 saw you engineering a situation where you could ply a girl of fourteen with alcohol and then rape her. Both of those crimes occurred at a secluded place within a remote farm where there was little prospect of your victims finding help or being able to escape from you.
Whilst its impact has been felt in different ways, your conduct has had a significant effect on all of your victims and very profound effects on some of them. You have shown no insight and no remorse.
I have considered Mr Paterson’s submissions in the light of the reports and the evidence, but I am not persuaded that an extended sentence would offer sufficient protection for the public from you.
I have had regard to the opinion of the court in the case of Ferguson v HM Advocate 2013 SCCR 244, as I was invited to do by Mr Paterson in his written submissions.
I am satisfied on a balance of probability that the risk criteria are met.
Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the rapes of six different women, in the context of all of the charges of which you have been convicted on this indictment, and for what it is worth your record of previous convictions, I consider that there is a pattern of behaviour which demonstrates that there is a likelihood, meaning probability, that when at liberty you will seriously endanger the physical or psychological well-being of members of the public at large.
The detailed Risk Assessment Report states that you have demonstrated an enduring propensity to seriously endanger the well-being of others such that you present a high risk and will continue to do so when you are eventually released, whatever happens in the meantime.
Treatment is considered unlikely to mitigate the need for close supervision, restriction and monitoring for the foreseeable future and when you are eventually at liberty. Whilst I have considered the terms of the Criminal Justice Social Work Report, including the risk assessments reached which were at the moderate level, I accept Dr Cameron’s assessment, using methods approved by the Risk Management Authority, that you pose a high risk to members of the public at large.
I conclude that if an Order for Lifelong Restriction were not made, you would seriously endanger the physical and psychological wellbeing of members of the public at large, once you are at liberty, even more so if you were no longer subject to licence conditions.
Four of the convictions for rape relate to events which occurred after 20 June 2006 when the sentencing regime changed. I cannot impose an Order for Lifelong Restriction on those crimes committed before 20 June 2006. Accordingly, I require to deal separately with those crimes committed before that date and those committed afterwards.
I am required to take account of your having been on bail when you committed many of these crimes. However, given the totality of the sentences which I am passing and that some of the sentences will run consecutively, I will not increase any of the individual sentences on account of your having been on bail.
Having regard to all of the circumstances of the case, I conclude that you should be sentenced as follows:
On charge 2 you are admonished given the very limited conduct involved and the other sentences being imposed.
On charge 5, the repeated rape of JT, you are sentenced to imprisonment for six years, backdated to 22 August 2013.
On charge 7, assaulting JT, the sentence is imprisonment for one year to be served consecutively.
On charge 12 you are sentenced to two years concurrently having been acquitted of rape but convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse with JT when she was under 16.
On charge 17, assaulting JT, you are sentenced to one year consecutively.
On charge 18, an offence under the Telecommunications Act 1984 involving JT, you are sentenced to three months consecutively.
On charge 23, a minor assault on LN, you are admonished.
On charge 24, the rape of LN, you are sentenced to four years consecutively.
The total sentence on those charges is imprisonment for 12 years and three months and sentence is backdated to 22 August 2013.
Charges 26 and 42 really arise in the context of crimes of rape which feature respectively in charges 28 and 43 and do not merit a separate penalty and on charges 26 and 42 you are admonished.
On each of charges 27, 38 and 54, offences under the Communications Act 2003 concerning respectively KFB, TE and CK you are sentenced to consecutive sentences of imprisonment for three months.
On charge 35, breach of the peace, you are sentenced to imprisonment for six months.
These sentences will run consecutively with each other and consecutively to the sentences which I have already passed. They will however run concurrently with the sentence which I am imposing on charges 28, the rape of KFB, 29 an assault on TE, 33 the rape of TE, 36 an assault on TE, 43 the rape of ST, 46 an assault on AH, 47 an assault on AH, and 49 the rape of AH. On those charges I am making an Order for Lifelong Restriction.
Parliament prescribes how I should determine the punishment part of this indeterminate sentence. The punishment part is the period of time which must elapse before you can apply for parole.
Taking account of all of the crimes of which you were convicted on this indictment, and noting in particular that the jury determined that you had already raped two women prior to 2006, had I not been imposing an Order for Lifelong Restriction the custodial term of the sentence which I would have imposed would have been 22 years on charges 28, 29, 33, 36, 43, 46, 47, and 49.
I am required to ignore any period of confinement which may be necessary for the protection of the public and to determine the part of that period of imprisonment which would represent an appropriate period to satisfy requirements of retribution and deterrence. That period would be 18 years. I will follow the normal approach suggested in the legislation and reduce that period by one half to take account of the effects of early release. Accordingly the punishment part of your Order for Lifelong Restriction will be nine years. This punishment part will be backdated to 22 August 2013 and will run concurrently with the other sentences, totalling 13-and-a-half years, which I have imposed.
The sentence imposed on charges 28, 29, 33, 36, 43, 46, 47, and 49 is not a sentence for nine years, it is an Order for Lifelong Restriction which is a sentence of imprisonment for an indeterminate period. You will not be eligible to apply for parole until the punishment part has elapsed.
It does not follow that you will then be released. You will only be released from prison when the Parole Board considers that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that you continue to be held in prison.
The Clerk of Court will notify the Scottish Ministers of the details of your conviction so that they may determine if you are to be included on the list of persons unsuitable to work with young people. You will be subject to notification requirements indefinitely.”