SENTENCING STATEMENTS

 

A judge may decide to publish a statement after passing sentence on an accused 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. 

Statements are removed after around 12 months, but 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 Scottish Sentencing Council website.

Read more about victims of crime and sentencing.

Read more about civil judgments.

HMA v Marius Bauba

 

Jan 12, 2021

At the High Court in Glasgow today Lord Matthews sentenced Marius Bauba to 9 years imprisonment after the accused pleaded guilty to culpable homicide.

 

On sentencing, Lord Matthews made the following statement in court:

“You pleaded guilty to killing Morgan Dunn, a man you had only just met, following the consumption by both of you of drink and drugs at a house in Ayr. He died as a result of two stab wounds to the heart.

The Crown accept that the crime amounted to culpable homicide rather than murder, as a result of provocation by Mr Dunn in the circumstances set out in the agreed narrative. There was no premeditation and the violence was spontaneous. The knife was not one which you had brought but was lying open, having been used to cut up drugs. The Crown accept that it was the deceased who went for the knife first and I must sentence you on that basis.

In deciding on an appropriate sentence I have had regard to these circumstances, the report prepared by a social worker and everything said on your behalf. I have also taken account of your record, which contains amongst other things three convictions for violence. They were, however, on summary complaint and did not entail anything like the violence involved in this case.

The victim impact statement, written by Mr Dunn’s mother, in her own hand, is a heart-breaking document setting out very clearly how his loss has affected and will continue to affect her and her own mother. If it were within my power to relieve their grief I would do so but it is clear that no sentence I can impose will have that effect.

I am not satisfied that an extended sentence is required in this case but a lengthy custodial sentence is plainly needed.

Had the matter gone to trial I would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment on charge 1 amounting to 11 years and 6 months, 6 months being attributable to the bail aggravation. As it is, in view of the timing of the plea, the sentence will be one of imprisonment for 9 years including 5 months for the bail aggravation.

On charge 2 the sentence will be one of imprisonment for 9 months including 4 months for the bail aggravation. It would have been 12 months with 6 months attributable to bail but for the timing of the plea. That sentence will run concurrently with the sentence on charge 1 and both will be backdated to 20 February 2020.”

12 January 2021