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 John Higgins
Sep 25, 2024
On sentencing, Lady Haldane told Higgins:
“On 31st July 2024 you pled guilty to murdering your partner, Amanda McAlear, in the appalling circumstances set out in the agreed narrative which was read out at that time. Since that date, I have had the benefit of a number of Victim Impact Statements as well as a Criminal Justice Social Work Report into your background and attitude to this offence.
The Victim Impact Statements are eloquent of the fact that your actions have deprived Ms McAlear’s family of a clearly much loved daughter, mother, grandmother and sister. She is self-evidently irreplaceable and her loss has left an unfillable void in their lives. To lose her at all is a tragedy for her loved ones, but to lose her in the manner in which they did, having murderous violence inflicted on her by someone who was her partner of long standing, who might be expected to love and care for her, is, I am sure, unbearable for them. Nothing I say or do today can adequately reflect the loss Ms McAlear’s family have suffered.
The report is detailed, and helpful. What stands out from that report is your very limited insight into the consequences of your actions, and limited remorse, other than in the context of the effect of these events upon you. You seem to have focussed more on Ms McAlear’s actions which you suggest were, on your account, provocative, rather than the numerous opportunities to pull back from what was ultimately a murderous assault, which itself involved bruises and lacerations, and a fractured rib. These injuries were associated with Ms McAlear having been subjected to multiple blows. She also suffered damage to the soft tissues and structures of her neck. These injuries were indicative of compression of the neck which ultimately proved fatal.
When interviewed for the purposes of the social work report you sought in large part to deflect from your own personal responsibility and instead, in effect, blamed Ms McAlear for her behaviour. You assert that you have no or limited recollection of inflicting the fatal injury of compressing Ms McAlear’s neck.
As if that murderous assault was not bad enough, you then left the property you shared with your partner without knowing whether Ms McAlear was alive or dead, and failed to seek any assistance for her. This is conduct which is quite frankly deplorable. A direct consequence of you doing so is that Ms McAlear’s son had the unimaginable experience of discovering his mother in her deceased state when he attended the property the day after these events.
Mr Meehan has made a careful submission on your behalf. He invites me to have regard to the remorse that you have expressed, to your age, to your previous good work record and the limited nature of your previous convictions.
I have taken into account all that he has said.
As I said to you at the time of your plea, the sentence for murder is set by law, and is imprisonment for life. That is the sentence that I impose upon you today. I must also fix a period of time, known as the punishment part of your sentence. That is the minimum period that you must serve before you are eligible to be considered for release on life-long licence.
Having regard to all of the information before me, had I been sentencing you after trial, I would have imposed a punishment part of 20 years. I take account of the fact that you pled guilty, although at a late stage. Nevertheless I recognise that there was some modest utilitarian benefit in that plea, most obviously that it spared Ms McAlear’s family from having to give evidence in court. I will accordingly reduce that punishment part to 19 years, of which I attribute 6 months to the aggravation in terms of the 2016 Act.
You should understand that in fixing the punishment part the court is not in any sense fixing the time when you will be released. Instead the court is fixing the number of years which must be served by you before you can apply for release. The punishment part does not take into account the need for public protection. That is taken into account if and when you apply in due course for your release. Whether or not you are ever released will therefore be for others to determine in the future; and even if you are released you will be subject to the conditions of a licence for the rest of your life and liable to be recalled to prison if you break any of the conditions. What the punishment part does do is to reflect the sentencing aims of retribution and deterrence.
This sentence will run from 11th May 2022 when you were first remanded in custody.
That is all.”
25 September 2024