Scots support worker described as “nightmare for any female” struck from register after number of sexual assaults

A SCOTS support worker described as a “nightmare for any female” has been removed from the care register after being found guilty of a number of sexual assault charges.

Edward Davies was struck from the register yesterday after he was convicted of a number of sexual assaults and one charge of indecent communication between November 2020 and May 2021.

Davies, 54, pleaded guilty in a hearing at Falkirk Sheriff Court last year to charges including unfastening a woman’s bra, making inappropriate remarks and behaving in a threatening manner.

At the time, Sheriff Derek Livingston said: “He sounds like a nightmare for any female in his presence.

“There are six offences here and five of them are sexual offences. I’m still not sure you get it – your behaviour was completely reprehensible.”

Sheriff Livingston ordered Davies to pay each of the five women he sexually assaulted £500 compensation and the women he communicated indecently with £250 – a total of £2,750.

Davies was also placed on the sex offenders register for five years and required to attend the Moving Forward, Making Changes programme.

Facing a hearing before the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) yesterday, the panel found the evidence satisfactory to warrant striking Davies’ name from the register.

In their decision, the SSSC panel stated: “On 27 July 2022 at Falkirk Sheriff Court you were convicted of the following offences:

“Between 20 November 2020 and 18 May 2021, both dates inclusive at Borrowstouness, you did sexually assault (redacted), in that you pulled at her bra strap, and thereafter attempt to unfasten her bra.

“On 20 November 2020 at Bo’Ness you did sexually assault (redacted) in that you did pull at her bra strap and thereafter attempt to unfasten her bra.

“Between 20 November 2020 and 18 May 2021 and dates up to and including at Borrowstouness, you did communicate indecently with (redacted) in that you uttered inappropriate remarks whilst poking your finger into her hair.

“On 20 November 2020 at Borrowstouness, you communicated indecently with (redacted), (redacted), (redacted) and (redacted), in that you did repeatedly make references to sexual activity, utter noises of a sexual nature and utter offensive comments of a sexual nature.

“On 27 March 2021 at Borrowstounness, you did behave in a threatening or abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, in that you did shout, swear and utter offensive remarks towards (redacted).”

The SSSC also made note of a prior charge Davies was convicted of at Stirling Sheriff Court in November 2014.

They added: “On 15 November 2014 you did behave in a threatening and abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm in that you did shout, swear and utter threats contrary to Section 38 (1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010.”

Following his actions, Davies was found to have shown no remorse, with the panel stating: “Your convictions indicate serious underlying attitudinal and values issues which are not easily remediable.

“We have no evidence of remediation.

“The behaviour is categorised as behaviour which is fundamentally incompatible with professional registration.

“There is a risk of repetition as the behaviour occurred on various occasions over a number of years.

“You have also provided limited comments to the SSSC and there is no evidence of insight or regret. Your behaviour had the potential to place individuals at a risk of significant harm.”

The panel came to the conclusion that a removal was the best course of action.

They stated: “A warning would not be appropriate as it would not adequately address the impairment of your fitness to practice. The behaviour is extremely serious.

“There is no evidence a period of suspension would allow you to remedy the cause of the impairment of your fitness to practice.

“There is little evidence you acknowledge your failings and the pattern of behaviour and lack of insight suggest the behaviour is likely to be repeated.

“For the reasons outlined above a Suspension Order plus conditions would not be appropriate.

“The SSSC considers a Removal Order is the most appropriate sanction as it is both necessary and justified in the public interest and to maintain the continuing trust and confidence in the social service profession and the SSSC as the regulator of the profession.”