SENTENCING STATEMENTS
A judge may decide to publish a statement after passing sentence on an offender in cases where there is particular public interest; where a case has legal significance; or where providing the reasons for the decision might assist public understanding.
Please note that statements may include graphic details of offences when it is necessary to fully explain the reasons behind a sentencing decision.
Follow us if you wish to receive alerts as soon as statements are published.
Once charges are spent, any statement in relation to them is removed and cannot be provided or acknowledged. Statements published before the launch of the website may be available on request. Please email judicialcomms@scotcourts.gov.uk.
The independence of the judiciary is essential to safeguard people’s rights under law - enabling judges to make decisions impartially based solely on evidence and law, without interference or influence from the government or politicians.
When deciding a sentence, a judge must deal with the offence that the offender has been convicted of, taking into account the unique circumstances of each particular case. The judge will carefully consider the facts that are presented to the Court by both the prosecution and by the defence.
For more information about how judges decide sentences; what sentences are available; and matters such as temporary release, see the independent Scottish Sentencing Council website.
Read more about victims of crime and sentencing.
HMA v Scott Robert Pollock
Jan 10, 2020
On sentencing, Lord Pentland made the following statement in court:
“Scott Robert Pollock, the jury has convicted you of two offences of rape committed against the same victim: first on a single occasion in 2005 and then on a second occasion between 2007 and 2008. At the time of the first offence you were 18 and your victim was 14; at the time of the second offence you were 19 or 20 and your victim was 16.
I take account of your age at the time you committed these offences. I must also take into account that at the time of committing these offences you were some years older than your victim.
I take account also of the passage of time since the offences.
It is likely if the complainer had been in a position to give evidence in the previous proceedings in 2016, which resulted in your being convicted of a number of similar offences, that the present charges would have featured on the earlier indictment. I proceed on the footing that the custodial part of the extended sentence of 8 years imprisonment imposed on you at that time would have been somewhat longer in order properly to reflect the additional offences of which you have now been convicted.
The present offences were further instances of your predatory sexual conduct. It appears to me that you were someone who had no respect for younger women. You were insistent on having sex with them despite their making it clear to you that they did not want to do so. On each occasion featuring in the present indictment you callously ignored your victim when she told you that she did not want to have intercourse with you.
Having regard to the sentences that you are already serving, and to the fact that the present offences represent a significant extension of the course of criminal conduct you pursued, I sentence you on charges 1 and 4 taken together to an additional term of 5 years imprisonment. This sentence will run from today’s date. The extension period of 2 years previously imposed will not commence until the expiry of the term of imprisonment that I have imposed.
You will remain subject to the notification requirements applying to sex offenders for the remainder of your life.