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 Robert Danskin

Nov 8, 2024

At the High Court in Edinburgh, Lord Scott sentenced Robert Danskin to an extended sentence of 7 years after the offender pled guilty to brandishing an imitation firearm, assault, and attempted robbery. The custodial term was set at 4 years and 8 months, with an extension period in the community of 2 years and 4 months.

On sentencing, Lord Scott said: “You have pled guilty to a charge that, on 13 June 2024 at Nisa Local, 1 Abbey View, Dunfermline, Fife with your face masked, you assaulted Cheryl Gourlay, then in the course of her employment and acted in an aggressive manner, repeatedly demanded money from her, brandished an imitation firearm at her, climbed over the counter there, seized and pulled her on the body and attempted to rob her of a sum of money.

Before turning to question of sentence, I repeat what I said after watching the CCTV footage – those in the shop who faced you and stopped you from succeeding in this robbery - Aisha Javid, Robert Bell, Cheryl Gourlay and Usman Javid - should be commended for their bravery because, as you now acknowledge, they had no way of knowing that the gun was not real. They acted despite how terrifying a situation you created. Without their interventions, you might have succeeded in the robbery. You might have received some minor bruising when they stopped the robbery but what they did has undoubtedly saved you from the longer sentence you would have received had you succeeded.

Before passing sentence, I decided to obtain a Justice Social Work Report (JSWR). I did not require to obtain such a report in view of your schedule of previous convictions which features 4 previous convictions for violence, including an indictment for assault and robbery in 2007 which resulted in a sentence of 12 months detention and a supervised release order due to the risk you then posed. In total, you have served 3 custodial sentences, the most recent being that indictment sentence in 2007.

I asked for the report with a view to considering whether an extended sentence was necessary which would depend on whether you posed a risk of serious harm to the public as might be suggested by your previous convictions and the serious nature of the present offence.

The report confirms your acceptance of responsibility for your crime and explains that it was committed to try to address a significant drug debt and threats associated with non-payment of that. Your daily use of crack cocaine at that time had resulted in a debt of approximately £1,000. You realise, of .course, that such a debt offers no justification at all for what you did. Likewise, your use of crack cocaine that day is no excuse.

The report also provides some detail of serious adverse childhood experiences suffered by you. You have long-term addiction issues. You are prescribed an anti-depressant and are awaiting help from the Mental Health Team in Perth prison.

The risk assessment in the report identifies no protective factors to address the risk of re-offending.

The report states:

‘Until Mr Danskin addresses his substance misuse, there will be an increased risk of him engaging in offending behaviour. Mr Danskin has experienced trauma as a child and also struggles with his thoughts and feeling around his children being adopted. The risk of Mr Danskin continuing to use substances to block out the trauma he has experienced will continue to be present until he undertakes work around this and identifies appropriate coping strategies he can adopt rather than using substances.’

It concludes:

‘The nature of the index offence highlights that Mr Danskin poses a risk of harm to others, both physically and psychologically.’

The serious nature of the present offence, your previous convictions and the JSWR make clear that you pose a risk of serious harm to the public.

The JSWR recommends the imposition of supervision to follow the inevitable custodial sentence. In particular, the report mentions the option of an extended sentence which would address the risk you pose to the public.

Miss Ogg has acknowledged the gravity of the charge and rightly acknowledged the inevitability of a custodial sentence and that the circumstances would justify me in deciding that the custodial sentence should be by way of an extended sentence. I note that you would welcome additional support on your release and that may be an additional benefit of such a sentence but, as Miss Ogg has said, it is not the statutory test for imposing such a sentence which relates to risk of serious harm to the public.

I have considered and take into account the terms of the JSWR and all that has been carefully said on your behalf today by Ms Ogg. She has rightly emphasised your early plea of guilty and remorse which are the most significant aspects of mitigation. You did well to listen to your legal advisers to arrange an early plea.

Having regard to the whole circumstances of the case, in particular the gravity of the charge, only a custodial sentence is appropriate. It is necessary to punish you and to seek to deter you and others from behaving in this way and in particular to protect the public from you.

Having considered the established and escalating pattern of violent offending, the gravity of the present charge and the insights in the JSWR, the question of how best to protect the public arises. I am concerned to ensure that the public is adequately protected against serious harm from you when you are released from prison.

Having reflected carefully on all of the circumstances, in my judgement the normal period of licence would not be enough to protect the public from serious harm from you.

If you had been convicted after trial, I would have imposed a custodial term in the extended sentence of 7 years.

You pled guilty at an early stage by way of specific procedure to accelerate matters. I must and do recognise that there is a utilitarian value - that is primarily that there was a saving of court time - and I will therefore reduce the custodial term of 7 years by 30%. The custodial term will therefore be 4 years 8 months. That period will date from 14 June 2024.

I therefore impose an extended sentence of 7 years with a custodial term of 4 years 8 months and an extension period of 2 years 4 months for the duration of which you will be under licence on conditions fixed by the Scottish Ministers. If during this extension period you fail to comply with the conditions of your licence it may be revoked by the Scottish Ministers and you may be returned to custody for a further period.”