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 email@example.com.
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.
Read more about victims of crime and sentencing.
HMA v Derek Felvus, James Baillie and Thomas Duris
Jun 17, 2022
On sentencing, Lord Fairley said: "On 17 August 2020, Graham Williamson was shot in the back with a sawn-off shotgun as he stood outside his home in High Blantyre. He died in the street within seconds of being shot.
On the evidence that I heard, this was a premeditated killing which involved a significant level of planning. That included the use of a rented flat in Edinburgh as an assembly point, travel from there to Glasgow, the purchase of balaclava masks, a return to the Blantyre area and a switch to a stolen car with false number plates. The three of you then hunted for Mr Williamson in the stolen car. When you found him in the street where he lived, Thomas Duris left the rear seat of the car and executed Mr Williamson in cold blood by shooting him in the back at close range. The stolen car was then burned in an attempt to cover your tracks.
The murder of Mr Williamson was the fourth and final act of a toxic feud which had escalated over the preceding days. The motive for the murder seems to have been to try to re-establish the dominance and criminal reputation of a substantial operation for the sale of class A drugs that was then being run jointly by you, Mr Felvus and you, Mr Duris. That operation had apparently funded a life of relative luxury that you both enjoyed. In short, this was a premeditated murder organised and carried out by professional drug dealers to further their criminal business interests.
By its verdict, the jury accepted that the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that all three of you were party to and participated in the plan to kill Mr Williamson. Since you each played a material part in carrying out that plan, you are all equally responsible in law for its consequences.
Having regard to your individual circumstances, I see no reason to distinguish between you, Mr Felvus and you, Mr Duris, in the punishment parts which I must set for your sentences of life imprisonment. In each of your cases, the punishment part will be one of 23 years. 6 months of that period is attributable to the bail aggravation to which you were each subject. I will backdate those sentences to your respective dates of remand. Mr Felvus, your sentence will run from 26 August 2020. Mr Duris, yours will run from 3 October 2020.
Mr Baillie, having regard to your individual circumstances, and taking into account the fact that you were not subject either to a bail aggravation or to an aggravation of prior malice, the punishment part of your life sentence will be 21 years. Again, I will backdate that sentence to the date of your remand. Your sentence will, therefore, run from 3 September 2020."