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

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.

Read more about civil judgments.

Clive Thomson


Feb 25, 2021

Clive Thomson was today ordered to be imprisoned for 6 months at the High Court in Edinburgh for contempt of court in relation to the trial of HMA v Alex Salmond.


Sitting with Lord Pentland and Lord Matthews, the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, said in Court:

“The Court has taken account of the fact that this was a deliberate, and indeed planned, contempt of court. It is very serious matter. There are very good reasons why complainers in sexual offence cases are given anonymity. The protection is, by convention, afforded to complainers in all cases, not just the one with which we are concerned. Moreover, the reason for such protection extends beyond the complainers in the present case. One reason for it is that the risk of public knowledge of their identities can operate as a severe deterrent to others against making complaints to the authorities in sexual cases.

It so happens that the protection in this case was backed up by a specific order of the court to underline its importance, and you knew that this order had been made. Nevertheless you deliberately took it into your own hands to flout that order and post the names of those involved, believing at the time of your second post that you might be safe from proceedings from contempt of court by being abroad. You had thus given thought to how you might get away with it, going as far as to seek advice about that on Twitter. You decided to take a calculated risk. This was a blatant and deliberate breach of the order, which was likely to cause serious stress and concern to the complainers and interfere with the protection extended to them by the order. You not only provide the names of five of the complainers, you linked them with the initials by which they were referred in mainstream media. First you tweeted the name of one complainer, and were immediately warned in response by someone else that this was contempt. In the face of both that warning and the court order you tweeted other names. Your actions were clearly politically motivated, with a small “p”, as can be seen from the content of the third sentence of the second post. The first three words show very clearly that you knew what you were doing and that you deliberately chose to flout the order of the court.

We have read with care the Criminal Justice Social Work Report and listened to the points advanced on your behalf this morning. We are not unmindful of the effect imprisonment will have on your life and that of members of your family. However, for such a premeditated contempt, we are satisfied that there is no alternative to a custodial sentence, and we therefore propose to impose a sentence of 6 months imprisonment from today’s date, which period reflects the early acceptance of your guilt.” 

25 February 2021