Paedophile teacher jailed after admitting to abuse
The ex-physics teacher - now aged 72 - had been due to stand trial at the High Court in Glasgow.
Read More:
But, he instead pleaded guilty on Monday to a total of 11 sex abuse charges.
Bain had previously been locked up for six and a half years in 2016 for similar offences against five boys at a school in Dunbartonshire.
He was freed in mid-2020. It is believed these latest crimes were reported following publicity of the earlier case.
Bain was put back behind bars by judge Lord Young on Monday. The sentence was cut from 10 years due to the guilty pleas.
The 11 charges spanning between 1978-1999 consisted mainly lewd and libidinous behaviour as well as indecent assault.
Bain first abused a 12 year-old boy at a private school in Edinburgh, where he was latterly a house tutor.
He struck after ordering him to stay behind for detention. The youngster managed to race out the classroom traumatised.
The next boy would often go to Bain for help with his homework.
Prosecutor Shanti Maguire told the court: "It was during these occasions of tutoring that Bain would sexually abuse him."
Bain ordered the boy to keep quiet about what happened.
Revealing the effect on this victim, Miss Maguire said: "Due to the nature of these events, he has spent many years blocking out the memory of the incidents in that he cannot recall all of the details."
By the mid-1980s, Bain had moved to a private school in Aberdeen where he targeted one boy.
This pupil was described as "isolated and homesick" having moved from England to study there.
Bain - who was a house master - invited the child into his room. The pervert told the boy he would "look after him".
But, Miss Maguire told the court, instead, the teacher abused the youngster.
The incident only stopped when the school bell rang.
Bain's next victims were at the boarding school in Dunbartonshire. This is the same establishment involved in the 2016 case.
One then teenager was molested on three occasions in the physics teacher's laboratory.
Mis Maguire: "These incidents took place in view of other pupils. Bain acted as if it was mere wrestling.
"However, he believed it was done for other purposes - namely an opportunity for Bain to touch him."
Another boy had been the victim of bullying and had described the school as a "brutal environment".
He was also preyed upon in Bain's lab as well as in a dark room at a photography club the teacher ran.
This boy was further groped during rugby training sessions and on hill walking trips.
A third boy there had also been bullied and was grieving following the recent death of his brother.
He was "drawn" to Bain due to his apparent "kindly nature".
The ex-Cambridge University graduate groomed the youngster by giving him sweets and taking him to fast food restaurants.
Bain initially exposed himself in the camera club dark room.
He then groped the boy who felt "trapped". Other incidents occurred in the physics lab as well as in Bain's private flat in the grounds of the school, which "a number of pupils" were given access to.
It was there another teenager was molested while a film was being shown.
A further attack occurred while this boy was using a computer at the flat.
One pupil recalled being groped during so-called "play-fights" at the school.
A sixth boy studying there was inappropriately touched - but Bain casually told him "not to worry".
This victim also spoke of feeling "uncomfortable" as the teacher stood watching him and others pupils as they showered.
Another boy initially regarded Bain as "friendly" for being taken trips outside of school.
But, the youngster was then preyed upon in his bed and while alone with Bain in the private flat.
Bain made sleazy comments and gave money to the final victim, who was left feeling "uncomfortable" in his company.
The court heard Bain, of Crieff, Perthshire, had latterly been living with his 99 year-old mother.
Brian McConnachie KC, defending, told the hearing: "He tells me, that around the time of the millennium, he accepted that his behaviour had been out of control and he was determined to put an end to it.
"He has given evidence at the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry. He not only spoke about his own offending, but assisted with evidence of the culture that existed at the schools that he was involved with."
Sentencing, Lord Young said he had read a number of victim impact statements describing the "terrible legacy" left by Bain's abuse.
The judge said the then boys were left feeling "alone and lost" thinking they would not be believed had they spoke out at the time.
Lord Young: "These children were entrusted by their parents to the schools. They ought to have been nurtured and educated in a safe environment.
"Instead, it seems that throughout your career as a teacher, you abused this position to pursue your own sexual deviances."
Bain remains on the sex offenders list.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
15 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
McGregor continues appeal without fresh evidence
The Irish mixed martial arts fighter's lawyers are instead arguing that the jury heard an inadmissible line of questioning about his co-operation with gardai into their investigation of an incident at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor over the matter in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel. During a three-week case at the High Court in Dublin last November, McGregor told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. After six hours and 10 minutes of deliberating, the jury of eight women and four men found McGregor civilly liable for assault. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded 248,603.60 euro (about £206,000) in damages. She lost her case against another man, James Lawrence, who she accused of assaulting her by allegedly having sex without her consent at the same hotel. McGregor was ordered by a judge to pay Ms Hand 100,000 euro (£85,000) of the damages and 200,000 euro (£170,000) of an expected 1.3 million euro (£1.1 million) in legal costs before the appeal. He has since sought an appeal which was initially expected to include new evidence. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal in Dublin heard that McGregor would no longer be relying on additional evidence that had not been given to the initial trial for his appeal. That evidence was reported to relate to two neighbours of Ms Hand who had alleged they had seen her be assaulted by a former partner. However, McGregor's legal team said that after receiving new applications relating to the evidence to be given by pathologist Professor Jack Crane, they could no longer sustain that ground of appeal. John Gordon, SC, for Ms Hand, said it was 'frankly not appropriate' for the ground to be withdrawn on that basis, adding he had only been told of the development 10 minutes earlier. He objected to the withdrawal of the ground and argued he should still be allowed to cross-examine the neighbours. He said his client had been 'put through the wringer yet again' and that the court should not permit the appellant to 'waltz in here and then they can walk away from this'. Mr Gordon said there could potentially be matters relating to perjury arising out of the developments. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, alongside Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, questioned how further submissions relating to Prof Crane could lead to the withdrawal of the appeal matter on the neighbours' evidence. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said he was applying to withdraw the matter on a 'holistic view' of the whole case and after taking instructions. The court heard it was 'unsatisfactory' that the development was being brought to the court at a late stage, but Ms Justice Kennedy permitted the withdrawing of the ground. Following the withdrawal of that application, Remy Farrell, SC, also for McGregor, advanced the remaining four grounds of the appeal – largely relating to the right to silence and 'no comment' answers to questions during garda interviews. He raised the issue of the cross-examination of McGregor during the original trial by Mr Gordon. He said an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. Mr Farrell said that Mr Gordon had raised more than 100 'no comment' answers given by McGregor while being interviewed by gardai on the basis that it related to a position put forward by the fighter that he had been fully co-operative with gardai. Mr Farrell said this was allowed to proceed by the trial judge, with Mr Justice Alexander Owens telling Mr Gordon multiple times to get to that specific purpose of that line of questioning. However, putting forward the appeal, McGregor's counsel said this did not occur – and was in itself based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had said that he had made a comment about wanting to 'show everything' and 'get everything correct' in seeking out the 'best advice' from his solicitors – rather than saying he had been fully co-operative with gardai. He said it was 'manifestly wrong' and 'blatantly incorrect' for Mr Justice Owens to tell the jury the questioning was allowed as McGregor had raised his status as someone trying to sort out matters with the guards as best he can. Mr Farrell argued that the line of questioning was 'wholly impermissible' and was inviting someone to draw an inference that there was 'no smoke without fire' when invoking the right to silence. McGregor's counsel said the judge appeared to have 'somewhat lost control of the issue' and instead later told the jury during the charge that it could still be allowed for the different purpose of understanding background material to McGregor's answers and understanding the sequence of interviews and statements. Mr Farrell said there had been 'various vague circling' around a suggestion of whether McGregor had been co-operative or not, but it had at no point been put to him that he had been untruthful in his answers. He said the handling of the no-comment answers meant a retrial may be appropriate. Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation. He argued that it was ambiguous and possible to interpret an answer that he wanted to 'show everything' that this related to gardai rather than to solicitors, and that it was 'obvious' that Mr Gordon had cross-examined him about his co-operation with the investigation. He argued, therefore, that while the judge may have got some of the details wrong, it was appropriate for the line of questioning on the no-comment answers to be admissible. For example, he said his lack of co-operation was evidenced by how he had not handed over his phone while Ms Hand had done so. He reiterated that the judge had made it abundantly clear the jury could not draw adverse inferences from the no-comment answers. He said Mr McGregor had expressed a want to put every shred of evidence before the court. However, he said McGregor had only been 'middling co-operative' rather than fully co-operative with gardai. He said the purpose of the questioning had been followed through on, even if it was subtle or inferential. A small group of supporters stood outside the court on Tuesday morning with a banner reading 'We stand with Nikita Hand', including Socialist Party TD Ruth Coppinger and campaigner Natasha O'Brien. Ms O'Brien was among some of the crowd to enter the court to express well wishes to Ms Hand. The proceedings, including Mr Lawrence's appeal against a decision not to be awarded costs, continue on Wednesday.
North Wales Chronicle
17 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
McGregor continues appeal without fresh evidence
The Irish mixed martial arts fighter's lawyers are instead arguing that the jury heard an inadmissible line of questioning about his co-operation with gardai into their investigation of an incident at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor over the matter in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel. During a three-week case at the High Court in Dublin last November, McGregor told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. After six hours and 10 minutes of deliberating, the jury of eight women and four men found McGregor civilly liable for assault. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded 248,603.60 euro (about £206,000) in damages. She lost her case against another man, James Lawrence, who she accused of assaulting her by allegedly having sex without her consent at the same hotel. McGregor was ordered by a judge to pay Ms Hand 100,000 euro (£85,000) of the damages and 200,000 euro (£170,000) of an expected 1.3 million euro (£1.1 million) in legal costs before the appeal. He has since sought an appeal which was initially expected to include new evidence. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal in Dublin heard that McGregor would no longer be relying on additional evidence that had not been given to the initial trial for his appeal. That evidence was reported to relate to two neighbours of Ms Hand who had alleged they had seen her be assaulted by a former partner. However, McGregor's legal team said that after receiving new applications relating to the evidence to be given by pathologist Professor Jack Crane, they could no longer sustain that ground of appeal. John Gordon, SC, for Ms Hand, said it was 'frankly not appropriate' for the ground to be withdrawn on that basis, adding he had only been told of the development 10 minutes earlier. He objected to the withdrawal of the ground and argued he should still be allowed to cross-examine the neighbours. He said his client had been 'put through the wringer yet again' and that the court should not permit the appellant to 'waltz in here and then they can walk away from this'. Mr Gordon said there could potentially be matters relating to perjury arising out of the developments. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, alongside Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, questioned how further submissions relating to Prof Crane could lead to the withdrawal of the appeal matter on the neighbours' evidence. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said he was applying to withdraw the matter on a 'holistic view' of the whole case and after taking instructions. The court heard it was 'unsatisfactory' that the development was being brought to the court at a late stage, but Ms Justice Kennedy permitted the withdrawing of the ground. Following the withdrawal of that application, Remy Farrell, SC, also for McGregor, advanced the remaining four grounds of the appeal – largely relating to the right to silence and 'no comment' answers to questions during garda interviews. He raised the issue of the cross-examination of McGregor during the original trial by Mr Gordon. He said an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. Mr Farrell said that Mr Gordon had raised more than 100 'no comment' answers given by McGregor while being interviewed by gardai on the basis that it related to a position put forward by the fighter that he had been fully co-operative with gardai. Mr Farrell said this was allowed to proceed by the trial judge, with Mr Justice Alexander Owens telling Mr Gordon multiple times to get to that specific purpose of that line of questioning. However, putting forward the appeal, McGregor's counsel said this did not occur – and was in itself based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had said that he had made a comment about wanting to 'show everything' and 'get everything correct' in seeking out the 'best advice' from his solicitors – rather than saying he had been fully co-operative with gardai. He said it was 'manifestly wrong' and 'blatantly incorrect' for Mr Justice Owens to tell the jury the questioning was allowed as McGregor had raised his status as someone trying to sort out matters with the guards as best he can. Mr Farrell argued that the line of questioning was 'wholly impermissible' and was inviting someone to draw an inference that there was 'no smoke without fire' when invoking the right to silence. McGregor's counsel said the judge appeared to have 'somewhat lost control of the issue' and instead later told the jury during the charge that it could still be allowed for the different purpose of understanding background material to McGregor's answers and understanding the sequence of interviews and statements. Mr Farrell said there had been 'various vague circling' around a suggestion of whether McGregor had been co-operative or not, but it had at no point been put to him that he had been untruthful in his answers. He said the handling of the no-comment answers meant a retrial may be appropriate. Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation. He argued that it was ambiguous and possible to interpret an answer that he wanted to 'show everything' that this related to gardai rather than to solicitors, and that it was 'obvious' that Mr Gordon had cross-examined him about his co-operation with the investigation. He argued, therefore, that while the judge may have got some of the details wrong, it was appropriate for the line of questioning on the no-comment answers to be admissible. For example, he said his lack of co-operation was evidenced by how he had not handed over his phone while Ms Hand had done so. He reiterated that the judge had made it abundantly clear the jury could not draw adverse inferences from the no-comment answers. He said Mr McGregor had expressed a want to put every shred of evidence before the court. However, he said McGregor had only been 'middling co-operative' rather than fully co-operative with gardai. He said the purpose of the questioning had been followed through on, even if it was subtle or inferential. A small group of supporters stood outside the court on Tuesday morning with a banner reading 'We stand with Nikita Hand', including Socialist Party TD Ruth Coppinger and campaigner Natasha O'Brien. Ms O'Brien was among some of the crowd to enter the court to express well wishes to Ms Hand. The proceedings, including Mr Lawrence's appeal against a decision not to be awarded costs, continue on Wednesday.
Powys County Times
18 hours ago
- Powys County Times
McGregor continues appeal without fresh evidence
Conor McGregor's legal team has withdrawn a bid to introduce fresh evidence in his appeal against a decision in a civil case in which a woman accused him of raping her. The Irish mixed martial arts fighter's lawyers are instead arguing that the jury heard an inadmissible line of questioning about his co-operation with gardai into their investigation of an incident at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor over the matter in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel. During a three-week case at the High Court in Dublin last November, McGregor told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. After six hours and 10 minutes of deliberating, the jury of eight women and four men found McGregor civilly liable for assault. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded 248,603.60 euro (about £206,000) in damages. She lost her case against another man, James Lawrence, who she accused of assaulting her by allegedly having sex without her consent at the same hotel. McGregor was ordered by a judge to pay Ms Hand 100,000 euro (£85,000) of the damages and 200,000 euro (£170,000) of an expected 1.3 million euro (£1.1 million) in legal costs before the appeal. He has since sought an appeal which was initially expected to include new evidence. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal in Dublin heard that McGregor would no longer be relying on additional evidence that had not been given to the initial trial for his appeal. That evidence was reported to relate to two neighbours of Ms Hand who had alleged they had seen her be assaulted by a former partner. However, McGregor's legal team said that after receiving new applications relating to the evidence to be given by pathologist Professor Jack Crane, they could no longer sustain that ground of appeal. John Gordon, SC, for Ms Hand, said it was 'frankly not appropriate' for the ground to be withdrawn on that basis, adding he had only been told of the development 10 minutes earlier. He objected to the withdrawal of the ground and argued he should still be allowed to cross-examine the neighbours. He said his client had been 'put through the wringer yet again' and that the court should not permit the appellant to 'waltz in here and then they can walk away from this'. Mr Gordon said there could potentially be matters relating to perjury arising out of the developments. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, alongside Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, questioned how further submissions relating to Prof Crane could lead to the withdrawal of the appeal matter on the neighbours' evidence. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said he was applying to withdraw the matter on a 'holistic view' of the whole case and after taking instructions. The court heard it was 'unsatisfactory' that the development was being brought to the court at a late stage, but Ms Justice Kennedy permitted the withdrawing of the ground. Following the withdrawal of that application, Remy Farrell, SC, also for McGregor, advanced the remaining four grounds of the appeal – largely relating to the right to silence and 'no comment' answers to questions during garda interviews. He raised the issue of the cross-examination of McGregor during the original trial by Mr Gordon. He said an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. Mr Farrell said that Mr Gordon had raised more than 100 'no comment' answers given by McGregor while being interviewed by gardai on the basis that it related to a position put forward by the fighter that he had been fully co-operative with gardai. Mr Farrell said this was allowed to proceed by the trial judge, with Mr Justice Alexander Owens telling Mr Gordon multiple times to get to that specific purpose of that line of questioning. However, putting forward the appeal, McGregor's counsel said this did not occur – and was in itself based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had said that he had made a comment about wanting to 'show everything' and 'get everything correct' in seeking out the 'best advice' from his solicitors – rather than saying he had been fully co-operative with gardai. He said it was 'manifestly wrong' and 'blatantly incorrect' for Mr Justice Owens to tell the jury the questioning was allowed as McGregor had raised his status as someone trying to sort out matters with the guards as best he can. Mr Farrell argued that the line of questioning was 'wholly impermissible' and was inviting someone to draw an inference that there was 'no smoke without fire' when invoking the right to silence. McGregor's counsel said the judge appeared to have 'somewhat lost control of the issue' and instead later told the jury during the charge that it could still be allowed for the different purpose of understanding background material to McGregor's answers and understanding the sequence of interviews and statements. Mr Farrell said there had been 'various vague circling' around a suggestion of whether McGregor had been co-operative or not, but it had at no point been put to him that he had been untruthful in his answers. He said the handling of the no-comment answers meant a retrial may be appropriate. Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation. He argued that it was ambiguous and possible to interpret an answer that he wanted to 'show everything' that this related to gardai rather than to solicitors, and that it was 'obvious' that Mr Gordon had cross-examined him about his co-operation with the investigation. He argued, therefore, that while the judge may have got some of the details wrong, it was appropriate for the line of questioning on the no-comment answers to be admissible. For example, he said his lack of co-operation was evidenced by how he had not handed over his phone while Ms Hand had done so. He reiterated that the judge had made it abundantly clear the jury could not draw adverse inferences from the no-comment answers. He said Mr McGregor had expressed a want to put every shred of evidence before the court. However, he said McGregor had only been 'middling co-operative' rather than fully co-operative with gardai. He said the purpose of the questioning had been followed through on, even if it was subtle or inferential. A small group of supporters stood outside the court on Tuesday morning with a banner reading 'We stand with Nikita Hand', including Socialist Party TD Ruth Coppinger and campaigner Natasha O'Brien. Ms O'Brien was among some of the crowd to enter the court to express well wishes to Ms Hand. The proceedings, including Mr Lawrence's appeal against a decision not to be awarded costs, continue on Wednesday.
