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.

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 Stacey Archibald & Christopher McTaggart

Mar 12, 2024

At the High Court in Edinburgh, Lord Weir imposed extended sentences of 13 and 16 years respectively on Stacey Archibald and Christopher McTaggart. Both had been found guilty of three charges of attempted murder and a further charge of culpable and reckless conduct. Archibald will spend 8 years in prison and a further 5 years on licence in the community. McTaggart must serve a prison term of 11 years and 5 years on licence.

On sentencing, Lord Weir told Archibald:

“You were convicted after trial of three charges of attempted murder and one charge of culpable and reckless conduct involving the interference with the gas supply to your home at the time, 258 King Street, Stenhousemuir, in the highly concerning circumstances described in the evidence. Precisely what transpired, and when, within that property on 22 and 23 April will to a degree at least remain uncertain standing the differing accounts given by you and your co-accused to your respective social workers, and by Mr McTaggart when he gave evidence.

What is, however, clear is that the jury were satisfied that you – along with Mr McTaggart - were and are criminally responsible for the cutting of a live gas pipe within the kitchen, and the taking of the other steps narrated in charges 1 and 2, in an attempt to murder two children in the living room of the property. You then inflicted a severe incised wound to Mr McTaggart’s arm, in an attempt to murder him also. Few, if any, listening to the evidence which gave rise to your conviction, can fail to have been moved and deeply troubled by what the evidence revealed in this case and the situation into which you placed children.

In determining a sentence which is fair and proportionate to those circumstances, the court has regard to a number of established parameters, including the Principles and Purposes of Sentencing and Sentencing Process Guidelines published by the Scottish Sentencing Council. In doing so I require to have regard to the seriousness of the offences of which you were convicted but also reflect in the sentence imposed relevant mitigating factors, and that I have sought to do in your case, with the assistance of the submissions of Mr Moggach on your behalf and the contents of the CJSWR.

Seriousness

In determining the seriousness of the offences I take account of the fact that two of the victims were children at the material time, that you were in a position of trust towards them, your apparent disregard for where their welfare lay in deciding on the course of action which you did, and the incalculable psychological harm your conduct will have inflicted on the children in attempting to come to terms with what happened. I also have regard to the wider danger to which you exposed the community by your actions, and the wound you inflicted on Mr McTaggart.

In considering factors mitigating sentence, I have anxiously considered the context in which you came to inflict the wound on Mr McTaggart which the Crown presented as, in effect, a suicide pact. I note that you have no previous convictions and have a history of mental health difficulties, with a current diagnosis of emotional unstable personality disorder, and that poor mental health may have impacted on your decision-making at the time of the incidents with which we are concerned. I take account of all that has been said on your behalf this morning and the contents of the background report and updated report by Dr Bett, from which it is gratifying to note the relative improvement in your mental health and the support from which you have benefited since being remanded which may not previously have been available to you.

Drawing these complicated strings together, the nature of the offences themselves are such that a significant custodial sentence is inevitable. While acknowledging the improvement in you mental health I am also satisfied that an extension to that sentence under section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is necessary to secure the public from serious harm when you are eventually released.

Accordingly, in respect of all charges in cumulo, I will pass an extended sentence of 13 years, which is in two parts.

The first part of the sentence is an immediate period in custody. That custodial term will be one of 8 years and it will be backdated to 25 April 2022, that being the date when you were remanded in custody.

But this immediate period in custody is not the end of your sentence in respect of those charges. The second part of your sentence will be served in the community. From the date of your release, you will be under licence for an extension period of 5 years. The conditions of your licence will be fixed by the Scottish Ministers. If during this extension period you fail to comply with the conditions of your licence, it may be revoked and you may be returned to custody for a further period in respect of this case. The court also has power to deal with you if you commit another offence after your release and while you are on licence.”

Lord Weir told Christopher McTaggart:

“You too were convicted after trial of three charges of attempted murder and one charge of culpable and reckless conduct involving the interference with the gas supply to the locus.

In your case too the jury were satisfied that you were criminally responsible for the cutting of a live gas pipe within the kitchen, and the taking of the other steps narrated in charges 1 and 2, in an attempt to murder two children in the living room of the property. You then inflicted a severe incised wound to Miss Archibald’s arm, in an attempt to murder her also.

In determining a sentence which is fair and proportionate to those circumstances, the approach of the court is as I have just set out when passing sentence on Miss Archibald. I make clear that I have considered carefully the submissions made on your behalf by Mr Neilson, the terms of the CJSWR, and the relevant Sentencing Guidelines to which reference was made earlier.

Seriousness

In determining the seriousness of the offences I again have to factor in the age of the two children named in charges 1 and 2 at the time, your responsibility towards them as a mature adult, your apparent disregard for where their welfare lay in embarking on the course of action which you did, and the psychological harm your conduct will have inflicted on the children in attempting to come to terms with what happened. I have again had regard to the wider danger to which you exposed the community by your actions as well as the injury you inflicted on Miss Archibald.

In considering the terms of the background report I note that you still maintain that you were in some way acting to protect the children from harm – an explanation that rests very uneasily with the appalling conduct for which the jury found you responsible and one which is more redolent of a failure to face up to the actual and potential consequences of what you did. I also take into account that you, unlike your co-accused, have a lengthy record of previous convictions (albeit non-analogous), and are currently serving a solemn sentence from Ayr Sheriff Court arising from a conviction for offences of abduction, assault and a statutory breach of the peace.

By way of mitigation I take account again of the context in which you inflicted an injury on Ms Archibald. I have also considered all that has been said on your behalf this morning by Mr Neilson about your own mental health struggles and unresolved issues in your past. I especially note from the CJSWR that before the instant offences you were receiving treatment to address trauma-related issues although the extent, if at all, to which these matters may have affected your decision making at the time is not more deeply explored.

As I have already made clear, the nature of the offences themselves are such that a significant custodial sentence is inevitable. In your case too I am satisfied that an extension to that sentence under section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is necessary to secure the public from serious harm when you are eventually released.

Accordingly, in respect of all charges in cumulo, I will pass an extended sentence of 16 years, which is in two parts.

The first part of the sentence is an immediate period in custody. That custodial term will be one of 11 years and it will be backdated to 30 January 2024, that being the date when you were remanded in custody.

I will also make Non-Harassment Orders in terms of which, for an indefinite period, you will not approach, contact, attempt to contact or otherwise in any way communicate with the complainers named in charges 1 and 2 on the indictment.”

12 March 2024