Man who abused children in Lanarkshire jailed for 15 years
The abuse occurred at three different children's homes in Lanarkshire, which cannot be named for legal reasons.
Stanton - now 73 - had been the manager at one and a carer at the other two between 1985 and 1994.
Read More:
He had denied the accusations during a trial at the High Court in Glasgow.
But, he was found guilty of 11 charges after the jury heard distressing accounts of how the victims had suffered over the years.
Following the verdicts, it emerged the predator was previously jailed for jailed for 13 years in 1996 for historical abuse of boys at a children's home in Merseyside.
In 2021, he convicted of attacks on two other youngsters at the same establishment around that time.
Stanton has also been jailed possessing indecent images of children and breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order.
He was today/yesterday sentenced for these latest crimes by Judge Andrew Miller at the High Court in Aberdeen.
The trial last month was told how Stanton was physically abusive to a boy as he repeatedly unleashed his violent temper.
He then carried out sex attacks on a teenage girl including at a campsite in Dumfries.
Stanton preyed on another victim while she was initially asleep.
A then boy recalled how he was only young at the time, but knew what was happening was "not right". He was left feeling "scared" of Stanton.
One resident was molested while in a tent.
This boy had alerted a member of staff at the time, but he was "not believed".
The now man said he and others were "vulnerable children...meant to be in a place of safety".
But, he added reports of such matters appeared to be "brushed under the carpet".
Another boy was also left terrified of Stanton who gave him money to effectively buy his silence.
A further victim remembered speaking to staff, but "nothing was done".
In his closing speech to jurors, prosecutor Scott McKenzie said one then resident recalled Stanton as initially being "nice" and that he had never previously had anyone show him any attention.
But, the violent bully soon showed his "true colours" by repeatedly punching and kicking him.
One girl was aged around seven when Stanton targeted her - he went on to rape this youngster.
The final victim on the indictment had only been at the children's home where Stanton was then based for two nights, but he was still able to take advantage of her.
She has been left suffering from "flashbacks".
Stanton was convicted of charges of rape, numerous indecent assaults, lewd and libidinous behaviour as well as physical attacks.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
High Court orders investigation into MI5 over false evidence
MI5 could still face contempt of court proceedings over incorrect evidence provided in a bid for an injunction against the BBC, judges at the High Court have said. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. In 2022, Suella Braverman, the then-attorney general, went to the High Court to stop the BBC airing a programme that would name a man who had allegedly abused two women and was a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals for not being fully transparent with the court had been met. On Wednesday, Baroness Carr said that a new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then claimed it had maintained its policy of neither confirm nor deny. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes, with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. 'Serious procedural deficiencies' In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way – and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Full and unreserved apology Following the ruling, Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 director-general said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.' A BBC spokesman said: 'We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges. 'We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Nikita Hand's lawyer asks court to refer McGregor appeal affidavits to DPP
The Irish Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should examine affidavits making accusations against a woman who sued Conor McGregor, her lawyers have said, after the fighter decided to withdraw them from his appeal. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor in a civil court over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. 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 euros (about £206,000) in damages. Her lawyers have said she was disadvantaged by 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' in 'widely published' claims McGregor brought as part of his appeal that she did not have a chance to reply to in court before they were withdrawn. It related to affidavits from two former neighbours of Ms Hand which said she had been assaulted by her then-partner at around the same time of the incident at the hotel. On Tuesday, McGregor's legal team dramatically withdrew that ground of appeal which would have introduced the new evidence into the proceedings – saying it would no longer be relying on the material. John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, said it was 'frankly not appropriate' for the ground to be withdrawn at a late basis. He said his client, who had denied accusations within the affidavits, had been 'put through the wringer yet again'. On Wednesday, Mr Gordon raised the matters again and asked the Court of Appeal to use its jurisdiction to refer matters to the DPP. He said the application on the affidavits had been made 'some months ago' and the material the proposed witnesses were due to raise had been 'published widely'. He said the court was aware of the 'scale of the accusations' made against his client, which he said were a series of 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' including that she had been lying. Mr Gordon said the application to introduce the witnesses was not just to produce further evidence, but also to 'undermine my client's reputation'. He said Ms Hand had described what was alleged as lies in her responding affidavit and that she should have been entitled for her opportunity to 'call this out in court'. He said his client had been disadvantaged by the application. Mr Gordon also said it amounted to discontinuation of part of the appeal and asked the court to add terms of the payment of costs to Ms Hand's side. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said that withdrawing the application did not amount to a discontinuation of proceedings and if Mr Gordon believed that a criminal investigation was necessary, it should be dealt with in that forum rather than the court. Speaking before Mr Gordon dealt substantively with the issue on Wednesday, Mr Mulholland said it was an attempt to get the matter on the record for the media, adding that this would be 'wholly inappropriate'. He said costs relating to this specific part of the appeal should be adjudicated within the final determination. He said he had no further comment to make on whether the matters should be referred to the DPP. The judges expressed concern that dealing with the materials relating to the affidavits created a risk of prejudicing any potential criminal prosecution. Meanwhile, the appeal, which has yet to be decided, had proceeded on other grounds largely relating to the circumstances under which his 'no comment' answers to gardai were allowed to enter the trial. Remy Farrell, SC, also for McGregor, said on Tuesday that an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. He said this occurred under cross-examination by Mr Gordon and was based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had made a comment about wanting to seek the best advice from his solicitors and accused Ms Hand's side of incorrectly interpreting the same comments as a suggestion that McGregor had sought to present himself as someone who was being fully co-operative with gardai. 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.
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
‘Premature' to decide whether MI5 should face contempt probe, judges rule
In 2022, then-attorney general Suella Braverman went to the High Court to stop the broadcaster airing a programme that would name a man who has allegedly abused two women and is a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme and the key issues, without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals, for not being fully transparent with the court, had been met. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. The senior judge said that the new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then said it had kept to the NCND policy. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way — and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Following the ruling, MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.' A BBC spokesperson said: 'We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges. 'We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest.'
