Tillicoultry man guilty of domestic assaults on former partners

Robert Law (28) attacked the two women between 1 January 2006 and 4 May 2009, following ongoing displays of ‘physical and psychological aggression’.

Among those incidents libelled was an occasion where he assaulted one partner by pushing her head in and out of bath water as she bathed, before draining the tub, putting shampoo in her hair and rinsing her with cold water.

A few years later, he assaulted the second complainer while she was pregnant by sitting astride her and choking her.

On both of these occasions, Law sought to ‘transfer responsibility’ for his actions by telling the victims they had made him do it.

He had originally faced a third allegation against another woman, but was acquitted on that charge.

The case concluded on Monday (21 April) following six days of evidence at Alloa Sheriff Court over the last three months.

Due to the closely-related nature of the charges, the prosecution used the principle of mutual corroboration to tie them all together.

This method – known also as the Moorov Doctrine – means that separate allegations, which lack direct corroboration in their own right, can be used to corroborate strikingly similar allegations if they can demonstrate an underlying course of conduct on the part of the accused in respect of all charges.

The case against Law was first called on 20 January with testimony from the first victim, who described a deterioration in their relationship.

The 29-year-old said she had met Law while they were both working as waiting staff at the Stirling Highland Hotel.

She said: “We got on together, but I knew he had a bit of a temper. As things progressed, we began arguing a lot more and the arguments became more heated.” The victim also described the incident in the bath tub which she said took place at Law’s parent’s address in Jamieson Gardens — where he was staying at the time.

She said: “I was in a bath in his parent’s house. We had an argument about his cheating and he grabbed the back of my neck and pushed me under.

“I completely froze,” she added. “He apologised for doing it, but said it was my fault because I made him angry.” She told the court about another incident on 14 August 2006 when she and Law had argued in his parent’s living room about what she claimed was his infidelity.

After grabbing her by the throat and pushing her against the wall, he then let go before she panicked and ran out of the house.

She also said that Law had chased her down the street before his parents took her home.

In the final incident she described to the court, she said Law had headbutted her during a heated exchange outside the same address in Tillicoultry.

In an effort to avoid the connection, she moved her head backwards causing it to connect with the wall behind her.

The second complainer then gave evidence over two days and described a similar deterioration in her relationship with Law.

She told the court the two had met when they were both working at the Park Hotel in Falkirk, sometime in 2008.

The 25-year-old said he had convinced her to let him live with her for a month, shortly after they began seeing each other.

“Things went down hill from there,” she told the court. “I didn’t feel comfortable having him there. But my understanding was that he would be leaving in a month anyway.” The complainer and her brother then moved to another property in Falkirk, with Law coming along also.

She said: “I didn’t want to approach Robert about not coming with us because I was scared of him.” In one incident later that year, she described how Law had become enraged and grabbed her by the wrists.

“I told him it was sore,” she said. “But he just seemed to find it funny.” She claimed that Law would bite her on her arms ‘at least a couple of times a week’ and that it ‘didn’t take him a lot to get angry’.

The witness then spoke of an incident which took place at Jamieson Gardens on 4 May 2009, while she was 12-13 weeks’ pregnant.

After picking Law up from an afternoon of drinking, they went back to the house and sat in his bedroom with a takeaway.

The court heard that he fell asleep and she decided to leave. But as she woke him to let him know, Law became enraged.

She said: “I rouse him...to tell him I was going. He said I wasn’t going anyway.

“He lunged at me and pinned me on the bed by the neck. I screamed and punched him and tried to get him off me.

“He had this look in his eyes – he just looked crazy. Afterwards he said I made him do that.” She then said she ran down the stairs to leave and when passing his sister on the way out she said: “Your a**hole brother just tried to strangle me.” The following evening, the two spoke with each other through an online chat. The court heard excerpts from the conversation in which Law said he was ‘out of order’, but that he ‘didn’t know what happened’.

The witness replied: “You scared the s**t out of me – I never thought you’d hurt me.” Law was said to have said: “I’m sick of hurting you.” The defence argued this did not pertain to a physical altercation, but referred to the ongoing breakdown of their relationship.

When Law took the stand, he admitted being ‘an ass’ towards her while they were together.

He said: “I apologised to her because of how immature I was, not because I assaulted her.” During his police interview Law admitted to pushing the second complainer but denied squeezing her wrists, biting her or choking her.

Throughout the course of the trial, it was his position that all three complainers had been lying and were colluding against him after getting in touch with one another on social media.

He was then cross-examined by depute fiscal Marie-Claire Chaffey who said: “We’ve heard accounts from three women who say you’ve assaulted them.

“Your position is that all three women are lying. Are you so unlucky that you find yourself subject to not one, or two, but three false allegations of assault from three separate women?

“That’s simply not credible, is it?” Law replied: “That’s your opinion. If I am such a monster then why do I have fiancée of two years?” The defence called into question the reliability of the complainers in the case.

When being questioned by his solicitor Iain Bradley, Law described himself as laidback and ‘not violent at all’.

He said the first complainer was ‘spiteful’ and that she had a bad drinking problem.

The defence argued she was a ‘drama queen’ and became jealous when his client received any female attention.

He also insisted the second complainer was ‘clingy’ and suggestions were made that she only reported matters to the police after becoming embroiled in a custody battle over their daughter.

However, after hearing all six days of evidence, Sheriff David Mackie found Law guilty of the first two complaints of assault.

He said that he was acquitted on the other remaining charge because the third complainer admitted to being excessively drunk during the one incident in question.

That admission, he found, had left him with a reasonable doubt and therefore could not find him guilty.

With regards to the first complainer, whom the defence claimed to be a drama queen, Sheriff Mackie said: “She gave evidence in a steady and clear manner and I found her to be a credible witness.” He also said the relationship was marked with ‘controlling behaviour’ and was further characterised by ‘physical and psychological aggresion’.

During the course of the trial, the court heard conflicting testimonies concerning one of the episodes described by the second complainer.

She said that following the assault in Law’s bedroom on 4 May 2009, she ran downstairs and told his sister: “Your a**hole brother just tried to strangle me.” The court later heard from Law’s sister who denied the complainer had made such a statement.

When faced with the two opposing statements during the trial, Sheriff Mackie remarked: “Someone is lying here.” On Monday, he said he ‘preferred’ the evidence of the complainer, saying: “I believe the witness was telling the truth.” He told Law: “She spoke of her uneasiness with relationship at an early stage and that you were generally angry and aggressive in nature.

“She also described being squeezed by the wrists and that you displayed pleasure at her discomfort.” Sheriff Mackie also said that he found Law’s admission of pushing the second complainer to be ‘incriminating’.

Sentencing was then been deferred for a month to allow criminal justice social work reports to be carried out.

Law will return to court on 21 May for sentencing.

Meanwhile, prosecutors have asked for a non-harassment order to be applied in respect of the first two complainers, with a decision also to be made on 21 May.