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 Tracy Menhinick

Apr 9, 2024

At the High Court in Glasgow , Lady Drummond sentenced Tracy Menhinick to 7 years imprisonment after the offender was found guilty of wilfully ill-treating a young child over a period of 3 years by giving him laxatives that were not prescribed to him, to his permanent disfigurement, permanent impairment and danger to his life.

On sentencing Lady Drummond made the following remarks in court:

"You were convicted by unanimous decision of the jury of wilfully ill-treating a young child over a period of 3 years by giving him laxatives that were not prescribed to him, when he was aged between 3 and 6 years old to his permanent disfigurement, permanent impairment and danger to his life.

You deliberately ill-treated him and made him unwell. He became so unwell he was repeatedly admitted to hospital. One of the doctors who gave evidence in this case described him as being emaciated on his last admission to hospital.

You had been an auxiliary nurse and knew what you were doing. You caused him to be in that state. Even once admitted to hospital you made sure you could continue to give him dangerous levels of laxatives. The doctors were baffled as to why despite all their intensive efforts to care and treat the child, the many tests and variations in treatments, he was not gaining weight and thriving. The level of laxatives he was being given were such that at times he would have floppy episodes when he became limp and had to be resuscitated. He had to undergo intrusive and risky operations which you knew were unnecessary and that the need for them had been caused by you.

Why anybody would want to inflict such severe harm and suffering, endangering the life of a young child on multiple occasions over a period of years is beyond understanding.

I have read the victim impact statement from the child’s carers. It records how he has been left with severe physical scarring from his ordeal. Your actions are likely to have had a negative impact on him psychologically. Your ill treatment of him has had a devastating impact on his life.

You abused the trust placed in you by the child and the hospital. You paid complete disregard for the consequences of your actions.

You are aged 52 and deny any responsibility for your actions. You have no previous convictions. You worked previously in a hospital setting and with young people. You suffered childhood trauma yourself and are currently bed bound.

You have a complex medical history from an early age and underwent medical procedures. I have read all the psychiatric reports including the most recent report which provides a detailed account of your medical and psychiatric history and diagnoses. In the psychiatrist’s opinion you suffer from mental disorders. You have factitious disorder imposed on self and imposed on another (these were previously known as Munchausen and Munchausen by Proxy). In the psychiatrist’s opinion, you do not require hospital treatment for these disorders. According to the report, you have not experienced impairment of your ability to test reality that would provide psychiatric grounds for mitigation for your actions. You do not accept you have these disorders. The motivation for your behaviour is uncertain.

I have also taken into account the psychiatrist’s assessment of your ability to cope in custody and his opinion that you will find it difficult for the reasons that he gives. I have taken into account the Scottish Sentencing Guidelines Principles and Purposes of sentencing and the principle that sentences should be fair and proportionate.

The only appropriate disposal for such serious ill treatment of a child over a 3 year period with such serious consequences must be a significant period of imprisonment. That is to mark society’s abhorrence of this conduct.

In considering the appropriate period of imprisonment, I have taken into account the circumstances, the criminal justice and social work report, all the medical reports obtained, your personal history and all that has been said on your behalf by Ms Connor. It is important that those responsible for you in custody are aware of your medical history and the assessment by the psychiatrist of your ability to cope in custody. Arrangements have been made to ensure the prison authorities are aware of his latest report and the criminal justice and social work report.

In all the circumstances, I sentence you to a period of 7 years’ imprisonment from today’s date."

9 April 2024