Former World Snooker Champion Graeme Dott Convicted of Child Sexual Abuse

Graeme Dott, who won the 2006 World Snooker Championship, was found guilty by a jury at the High Court in Glasgow of sexually abusing two primary-school-age children. The verdict came on Monday 24 August 2026, after a five-day trial that began on 18 August. Dott, 49, was convicted of two counts of lewd, indecent and libidinous behaviour towards the two children The Guardian.

The abuse spanned more than a decade and involved two victims. Dott abused a girl between 1993 and 1996 and a boy between 2006 and 2010. The offences occurred in the Glasgow area, with earlier reporting prior to the trial also referencing South Lanarkshire in connection with the allegations The Guardian; BBC News.

Dott denied the charges. During proceedings, he told the court there was "absolutely no way" he sexually abused two children. The jury rejected that denial, returning guilty verdicts on both counts.

The charge of lewd, indecent and libidinous behaviour is a common-law offence rooted in Scots law, the legal system specific to Scotland. It has historically been used to prosecute sexual misconduct involving children where the facts do not fit a more specific charge passed by Parliament. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, though sentencing is determined by the judge based on the circumstances of the case and applicable sentencing guidelines. A sentencing hearing has not yet been scheduled, as is standard practice following a guilty verdict pending social work reports and risk assessments.

Dott's sporting career forms the backdrop against which these convictions now sit. He won the World Snooker Championship in 2006 at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, defeating Peter Ebdon in the final. That victory placed him among a small circle of Scottish world champions in the sport. The abuse of the boy in this case overlapped with the period surrounding that championship win, beginning the same year.

The gap between the two sets of offences is notable. The abuse of the girl occurred in the mid-1990s, when Dott would have been in his late teens. The abuse of the boy began in 2006 and continued until 2010, a period during which Dott was an established professional on the main tour. The two victim accounts were separated by roughly a decade, yet the jury heard both and returned guilty verdicts on each count.

That both victims were primary-school-age at the time of the offences places the case within a category that Scottish courts treat with particular gravity. The use of common-law charges rather than statutory offences under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 reflects the fact that the conduct predated or straddled changes in legislation. Scots law permits common-law prosecution for historical offences where the conduct was criminal at the time it occurred.

The five-day trial length suggests a focused evidential presentation, with the jury deliberating before returning its verdicts on the final day. The High Court in Glasgow, Scotland's principal criminal trial court, handles the most serious cases under solemn procedure, which requires a jury of 15 and operates under different rules from summary proceedings in sheriff courts, where a sheriff sits alone without a jury.

The broader context here is the ongoing intersection of high-profile sporting figures and the justice system's handling of historical child sexual abuse cases. Scottish prosecutions have increasingly drawn on common-law provisions to address offences that predate modern statutory frameworks, and the Dott case follows that pattern. The gap between the most recent offences, ending in 2010, and the trial in 2026 reflects the time lag that frequently characterises such cases, where victims come forward years or decades after the abuse took place.

For the sport of snooker, Dott's conviction adds a criminal dimension to the reputational challenges governing bodies have faced. World Snooker Tour and other bodies within the sport's governance structure will now confront questions about safeguarding protocols and whether any regulatory action runs in parallel with or follows the criminal process.