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 Steven John Clark and Sean Douglas Imlach
Oct 3, 2023
On sentencing Lord Arthurson said:
“Steven John Clark and Sean Douglas Imlach, on 4 September 2023 at a preliminary hearing, you each tendered a plea of guilty to a single charge of being concerned in the supply of 56kg of cannabis, an amount equivalent to a maximum potential street value of £940,925, the period libelled being 2 months for Mr Clark and 3 months for Mr Imlach. You did this for what appears to be short to medium term monetary gain.
You each have non‑analogous summary convictions, which are of no weight in the sentencing exercise before the Court this morning. Neither of you has been to prison before. This conviction for both of you on any view represents a personal catastrophe in terms of your family and working lives. Your respective counsel have advanced submissions in mitigation on your behalf this morning, which I have noted and duly take into account, in particular the shame expressed by both of you.
The gravity of the index offence requires the selection of a substantial custodial headline tariff. Plainly no other disposal would be appropriate. You each played a significant role in a trafficking operation in respect of a class B drug on a major scale. The headline custodial period that I propose to use in this case will be 5 years for each of you, having particular regard to the amount and potential value of the drugs.
Mr Clark, you offered to plead in the terms now accepted by the Crown by way of pre‑indictment section 76 procedure. You will accordingly serve a sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment. Mr Imlach, your plea was tendered at the first preliminary hearing in this case. You will accordingly serve a sentence of 3 years and 9 months imprisonment.
These sentences will be backdated to the date of your respective pleas of guilty and subsequent remands into custody, namely to 4 September 2023.”3 October 2023