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 Gary Campbell
Mar 24, 2023
On sentencing, Lord Beckett said: “I have taken account of everything said in mitigation and the content of the reports. I recognise that you are a first offender and take account of that along with your history of useful employment and voluntary service assisting the fire brigade. I note the passage of time since your offending ceased, but that has very little mitigating effect for crimes as serious as these. It is to your credit that in 2021 and 2022 you took the various steps described today to seek professional help to address how all of this came to pass and I take account of that.
You have pled guilty and I will make an allowance for that. Whilst it is true that a trial which would have been very unpleasant for jurors has been avoided, it would not have been a long trial. No children would have given evidence, and the evidence would have come only from police officers and digital analysts. I understand that the Crown was not ready to commit to an agreed plea until their investigations were concluded, that extensions were consented to and that the plea comes under section 76 procedure. Nevertheless, it was some 15 months before discussions began and more than 20 months following your first appearance when the plea was intimated in writing. All of these factors bear on the level of discount which generally diminishes with the passage of time.
The indictment and narrative disclose that over a period of more than two years, you were intermittently sexually corrupting young children in the Philippines. You paid money for them to be filmed, for your sexual gratification, being sexually abused by adults whom you were both paying and directing to perform the appalling criminal conduct inflicted on children all of whom were under 13 and aged between 4 and 10. Children were made to sexually abuse each other. You recorded these events taking place.
You used the advantage of the comparative wealth of our society in order to pay people to corrupt children in a country in which the modest sums you paid were sufficient to motivate adults to sexually abuse young children. For your sexual satisfaction, they did so in the most heinous manner involving sexual touching, penetration and, in the case of charge 10, rape of two girls aged 8 and 9. You orchestrated children to sexually interfere with each other.
On each occasion the abuse extended over the significant period during which you were directing events online, sometimes lasting several hours.
It is abundantly clear from what you did and said that your only interest was your own sexual gratification. You showed no concern whatsoever for the wellbeing of children in a position of complete vulnerability under the control of those you paid.
You will appreciate that these are grave crimes indeed for which there is no suitable alternative to a prison sentence. It is necessary to punish you, to seek to deter you and others who would behave in this appalling way and to protect the public and particularly children in the Philippines from you.
I have considered carefully if there will be sufficient protection for the pubic from serious harm from you if I simply impose the long prison term that I have in mind.
Having considered the pattern of offending, the nature and gravity of these crimes and the further information and insights in the two reports, I consider that the question of how best to protect the public arises. I am concerned to ensure that the public is adequately protected against serious harm from you when you are released from prison.
I conclude that the normal period of licence would not be enough to protect the public from serious harm from you. Accordingly I am going to pass on you an extended sentence which involves a prison term and an extension period when you will be under licence on conditions fixed by the Scottish Ministers. If during this extension period you fail to comply with the conditions of your licence it may be revoked by the Scottish Ministers and you may be returned to custody for a further period.
But for your pleas of guilty, it would have been an extended sentence of 18 years with a custodial term of 15 years. As it is, making an allowance for your pleas of guilty, you are sentenced to an extended period of 15 years with a 12 year custodial term backdated to 27 February 2023 when you were remanded in custody.
You will be subject to notification requirements indefinitely.”
24 March 2023