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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 Alexander McConville
Oct 5, 2022
On sentencing, Lord Arthurson said:
"Alexander McConville, today the jury has convicted you of a single charge libelling assault to severe injury, permanent impairment and danger to life and attempted murder. You drove an estate car into collision with your victim’s vehicle on 11 May 2018 on the A713 near to Polnessan, Patna, Ayrshire, thereby causing him to stop driving and leave his vehicle, and you again collided with his vehicle and struck him on the body with your vehicle.
"You then drove away leaving your victim with significant injuries. He sustained multiple fractures of his pelvis and hip area, fractures to a spinal bone and to right and left ribs along with soft tissue injuries. He remained in hospital for several weeks and remains in almost daily pain in respect of his injuries. On the evidence led it would appear that this murderous attack by you, using a vehicle as a weapon, was indeed, as the Crown presented it before the jury, a planned and calculated one.
"You are now aged 37 and have to date accrued 17 groups of previous convictions, including the following: a conviction in 2006 at sheriff and jury level under section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which led to a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment; a conviction in 2011 again at sheriff and jury level for assault to severe injury and permanent disfigurement which led to a sentence of 2 years imprisonment; and a conviction from Carlisle Crown Court for dangerous driving in terms of section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which led to a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment.
"Your senior counsel has advanced certain submissions in mitigation on your behalf. He did not invite the court to obtain any background report in respect of you. In particular he observed that there is one directly analogous conviction on your record for a crime of violence in 2011 but that otherwise your record was in the generality related to road traffic matters. He made no submissions in respect of the facts or circumstances of this case.
"In the whole circumstances, having regard to the gravity of the crime that you have been convicted of today and standing the terms of your record of prior offending, I have concluded without difficulty that the only appropriate disposal in your case is the imposition by the court of a substantial custodial term. You will accordingly serve on charge 1 on this indictment a sentence of imprisonment of 9 years duration, which period will be backdated to the date of your initial remand in custody in this case, namely 16 February 2021.
"Finally, the offence in this case having been committed by you while driving, you will additionally from today be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 12 years, which period includes a period representing one-half of the custodial term now imposed."