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 Ethan Tyler Cruz
May 12, 2023
In sentencing, Lord Summers said:
"Mr Cruz was convicted of assaulting one woman to her injury and the danger of her life, of a breach of s.38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 and a breach of s.4 of the 2009 Act. These offences occurred in a 2 month period in 2014. But for the Order of Lifelong Restriction below I would have sentenced Mr Cruz to three years imprisonment for these crimes on a cumulative basis.
Mr Cruz was also convicted of assaulting a second woman to her injury and the endangerment of her life, a breach of s.38 of the 2010 Act and a breach of s.4 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2019. These offences took place subsequent to the offences against your first victim and were carried out over a period of about a year and a half in 2015 and 2016. I consider these offences should be sentenced in cumulo since they belong to a course of conduct.
Because of the longer period of criminal conduct and because I consider that the offending behaviour is of a greater magnitude than that which appears in charges 1-3, I would have sentenced you to five years imprisonment for these three charges.
I would also have been satisfied that an extension period was required and would have fixed that at four years. The two sentences would have been served consecutively and I would have pronounced a determinate sentence of eight years. The punishment part is four years imprisonment.
After having considered the reports of Dr Harris and Dr Tansey I am persuaded a determinate sentence and extension period is not appropriate. I consider that Mr Cruz poses a serious risk to women and that an Order for Lifelong Restriction should be pronounced.
The order took effect from 8 September 2021 when Mr Cruz was taken into custody after conviction. Mr Cruz is entitled to seek Parole after the punishment part of his sentence has come to an end. His date of release (if any) will depend on the view that the Parole Board take of the risks to public safety which he poses when it considers his case.
I also granted the non-harassment orders on the terms sought (section 234A of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995) in respect of your victims."