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.
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 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 Cheyenne Baptiste Naeb
Aug 30, 2024
On sentencing, Sheriff McCormick told Naeb:
“At the first diet on 12 July 2024 you pleaded guilty to charges (1) and (2) on the indictment. Charge (1) involves acting in a threatening or abusive manner. It is charge (2) which brings this case to the jury court.
In terms of charge (2) on 1 February 2023 you did assault a 28-year-old female railway worker in the course of her employment at Queen Street Station, Glasgow to her injury and to the danger of her life.
In particular, at around 09.00 during the peak morning commuting period, you lunged forward and pushed the complainer with both hands to her chest with such force that she came off the end of the platform and landed between the running lines on platform 7 in full view of a train driver who was preparing his train to leave the station.
The female worker was able to grab a hold of your sleeve which somewhat broke her fall. However, in terms of the agreed narrative, you then pulled your arm free before walking down the platform displaying no concern for the worker who had fallen between the tracks.
The female worker managed to pull herself back up onto the platform despite having injured her hip in the fall.
She was taken to Wishaw General Hospital where, fortuitously, it was confirmed that she had suffered no breaks or fractures from the fall. She had sustained swelling and bruising to her left hip and elbow along with superficial cuts and scrapes to her hand and to her legs.
This had been your gross overreaction to missing a train. You were 24-years-old at the time and are 26-years-old now. You have no previous convictions. You are an American student studying for a PhD in Scotland.
I have read the terms of the criminal justice social work report. Although the report reflects your genuine remorse, the report also explains that you struggle to effectively manage and regulate your emotions when faced with stressful situations. The author comments that you are not open to community based supports at this juncture.
I have to have regard to the gravity of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty. In addition, I take into account the terms of the criminal justice social work report, your age, your lack of record, your personal circumstances and all that has been said by your solicitor today.
Whether out of anger or frustration or both, this was a deliberate assault to the danger of life. It was fortunate indeed that the complainer was not more seriously injured. The potential consequences could have been catastrophic. I have read the victim impact statement in relation to the ongoing physical and emotional injuries sustained as a result of this assault.
Taking all these considerations into account and standing the gravity of charge 2 there is no appropriate alternative to a custodial sentence. The appropriate sentence would have been one of 27 months in cumulo (overall) for charges 1 and 2, which I shall reduce to 20 months to reflect the timing of the plea and backdate the sentence to 12 July 2024 being the date on which you were first remanded.”
30 August 2024