A qualified nurse and church leader from Banff has avoided prison despite being found guilty of sexually touching a boy half her age.
Lauren Middleton spoke only to confirm her name when she appeared at Banff Sheriff Court today as she waited to discover her fate at the hands of Sheriff Eric Brown.
The 30-year-old was found guilty of touching a 14-year-old boy – who cannot be named for legal reasons – in a sexualised way following a five-day trial at the court earlier this year.
She denied that, saying she had no idea that her actions were having a sexual effect on him and claimed the teenager had been “told to lie”.
‘A gross breach of trust’
As Sheriff Brown began to warn Middleton she faced a stint in prison of 12 months for her crime, a member of the public could be heard to shout “scum” from the gallery.
He stopped short of that, however, and instead told her she would fall under the supervision of the social work department for the next two years.
She will also be forced to complete 200 hours of unpaid work within the community during that time.
He said: “You were a regular visitor at the family home. The family extended to you their friendship and hospitality, and their trust to the extent you were accepted – almost – as a member of the family.
“That acceptance enabled you to have extensive contact over the period of the libel with the 14-year-old boy.
“The extent to which you became integrated with, and were viewed as part of the family, was reflected in part when the boy’s parents invited you to go with them on a family holiday by car to visit friends of the family in the south of England.
“It was during that holiday that the boy’s parents began to suspect that the nature of your relationship with their 14-year-old son was not quite what they had understood it to be.
“You were 28 – a mature woman, a qualified nurse at the time of the offence. The boy was 14. You knew, or should have known, that your conduct towards the boy was wholly inappropriate. You knew, or you should have known, of the risks your actions presented and of the harm they could cause.
“The offence involved a breach of trust. In my opinion, a gross breach of trust on several levels.”
No remorse for a betrayal of the church, family, and boy
It included evidence from his family, including his parents and sister, who detailed their family trip to England with her.
They said Middleton was witnessed touching the boy’s thighs and sitting under a blanket with him.
Sheriff Brown described the case as a “betrayal” of trust.
“In your capacity as a youth leader you betrayed the trust the church made in you,” he said.
“Secondly, you betrayed the trust placed in you by the boy’s parents who accepted you into their home and their family almost as one of their own.
“Thirdly, in particular and most significantly, you betrayed the trust a 14-year-old child placed in you and you betrayed that relationship as he perceived it to be.
“Your defence at trial was one of denial. You persist in that denial.
“Persistence in denial is not a mitigating factor. There has been no acknowledgement of guilt. There has been no expression of remorse or acknowledgement of the harm caused by your conduct.”
Zero risk to the public, but ‘issues’ to address
Her defence agent, Stuart Beveridge, told the court the guilty plea had a “devastating effect” on Middleton’s personal life.
Noting a report prepared by the social work department ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, Mr Beveridge said it deemed her as no further risk to the public.
He said: “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a report in my 30 years of being in courts where a client has been assessed of being zero risk.
“There clearly are some issues that the social work department wish to address with Miss Middleton and that can be done in terms of supervision.
“It is a very full report detailing Miss Middleton’s circumstances and also the devastating effect this conviction has had on her in relation to her employment and her personal circumstances.”
In addition to the unpaid hours and supervision, Middleton will also be subject to the notification requirements in the sex offenders register.
She has also been barred from contacting her victim for the next five years as part of a non-harassment order.
She left the dock in tears and was later whisked into an awaiting vehicle outside the sheriff court.