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.
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 Alix McIntyre
Apr 19, 2023
On sentencing, Lord Arthurson said:
“Alix McIntrye, on 3 March 2023 at Glasgow High Court shortly prior to the balloting of a jury in a trial which had been due to commence there in respect of you and your former co‑accused, you tendered a plea of guilty to a charge of assault to severe injury, permanent impairment, permanent disfigurement and to the danger of life. A short agreed narrative was read on 6 March 2023 following an adjournment to allow that narrative to be prepared and agreed. A further adjournment was allowed on the joint motion of your counsel and the Crown when the case called at Edinburgh High Court on 3 April 2023 in order to clarify the nature and extent of the complainer’s permanent impairment. These further enquiries have provided the Court with no material additional information.
You have no previous convictions and have to date remained on bail with a daily curfew condition, which you have fully obtempered, since 23 December 2020.
On the morning of 26 November 2020, by telephone, you made a threat of violence to the complainer. Later that afternoon you were observed by the complainer driving past her mother’s house in Priestfield Road, Glasgow. The complainer left her mother’s flat and took a golf club into the street, where a shouting match between you ensued. You drove off but rapidly returned and drove between two parked cars in a layby outside the flat. You continued to drive your vehicle at the complainer and pinned her against a wall, your vehicle coming to a stop after colliding with the complainer and the wall. The complainer’s legs were pinned by the front of your car and her body was across the front of it. You then reversed your vehicle at speed, coming into contact with one of the parked cars before you drove off. Neighbours and others attended to assist the complainer, who required to be transferred to the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, where it was ascertained that she had suffered a punctured lung and a significant spinal injury with potential nerve damage. The complainer subsequently required to undergo spinal surgery. She remained in hospital until 9 December 2020. She continues to require to use two walking sticks and has impaired mobility.
In the criminal justice social work report which has been prepared in respect of you it is plain that you have taken responsibility for what on any view is extremely serious criminal conduct on your part. The author of the report further advises that you have displayed a high level of remorse. You were aged 23 at the time of the index offence. You are now aged 25 and live with your partner and three year old son. You have significant caring responsibilities in respect of your parents. You have to date lived a pro social life and have a strong work ethic. Your risk of further offending has been assessed as minimal. You fully recognise, as does the Court, that any custodial sentence will materially impact your son and your wider family.
I take into account the submissions advanced on your behalf this morning by your senior counsel, in the course of which he emphasised your level of remorse, the utilitarian value of your plea, your status as a first offender, the minimal risk presented by you and of course your family obligations, particularly those held by you as the mother of a very young child. Nevertheless, you used your vehicle as a weapon against your victim on 26 November 2020, having earlier that day threatened her with violence. Your victim sustained a punctured lung, required spinal surgery and now walks with two sticks. Your act of violence could quite easily have resulted in a fatality, as you appear to recognise from the terms of the background report, albeit of course the previous libel of attempted murder has been deleted by the Crown.
In these whole circumstances I consider that no disposal other than custody is appropriate for an offence of this gravity. Taking that gravity into primary account, but also having regard to the unusually substantial and varied mitigatory factors which I have already referred to, I now sentence you to a period of 3 years and 8 months imprisonment, discounted from a period of 4 years due to the timing of your plea of guilty. In fixing this tariff I confirm that I have taken into account the period spent by you on remand prior to your admission to bail following your successful bail appeal in late December 2020 and that I have additionally taken into account your compliance with a daily curfew for a period of some two years and four months.
Finally, and for the avoidance of doubt, this sentence will run from today.”
19 April 2023