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 Sarah Cockburn
Apr 27, 2020
On sentencing, Sheriff Cubie made the following statement in court:
“This fraud was sustained over a period in excess of five years and involved the systematic, if unsophisticated, embezzlement of funds from your employers. This was done by the creation of false payments which appeared to be due to genuine companies but were diverted into bank accounts run and controlled by you, and by the appropriation of sums genuinely due to other companies into your own accounts either by duplicating payments or simply taking the payment for yourself. There were 779 separate transactions.
Your efforts were not just towards diverting the funds but to avoiding detection. This is highlighted in the information provided to me in relation to British Gas; you took £28,000 due to them; you then persisted in your efforts to persuade both British Gas and your employers that the sums had been paid.
Your actions caused the day to day running of the business to be affected; for example through the threat to the power supply by your diversion of the British Gas funds and the loss of profit which affected wage increases and recruitment. And your concentration on your actions and hiding the consequences of your actions diverted you from the job for which you were being paid.
This was a gross breach of trust. The actions have had material consequences for the company; the owner had to invest significant sums to keep the business going; he had to realise a substantial asset to fund the company. Your actions contributed to the company sustaining a loss; the company lost members of the workforce and could not afford to replace them. They had an effect on the personal health of the owner, both physical and psychological; his ability to trust any employee has been undermined.
The Criminal Justice Social Work Report suggests that you initially proposed to pay back the money and that it was for bills; but you effectively took for yourself a sum averaging £40,000 net additional income per year, broadly equivalent of an extra salary in excess of £50,000. So I find it difficult to accept that there was no element of extravagance or overspending for the expenditure to be so extensive. You accept that it was calculated and involved planning. There is no prospect of repayment.
I consider that only a period of imprisonment can properly reflect the seriousness of the offending behaviour and by that I mean the long term persistence, the sums involved, the gross breach of trust and the consequences to the individual owner and to the firm, of your actions which, however you chose to present it or rationalise it, were motivated by selfishness and greed. The law says that allowance must be given for your plea of guilty and I recognise that steps were taken very quickly after service of the indictment to resolve matters. I also recognise that you have no previous convictions and that you are to be separated from your young children at what is already a difficult time as a consequence of your behaviour. I recognise that you pose a limited risk and that through your work with Prime Care Health you have contributed positively to society. I take all of these factors into account in assessing the appropriate period of imprisonment.
I would have imposed a period of imprisonment of 33 months for this offending. I will restrict that to 22 months to take account of your plea, to be served from the date you were remanded into custody on 20 March.”
27 April 2020