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 Die Huang
Nov 25, 2024
On sentencing, Lord Harrower said:
"Die Huang, you have pled guilty to a single charge of causing death and serious injury by dangerous driving. The incident occurred on Sunday, 23 June 2024, on the A9, between Inverness and Pitlochry, approximately three miles north of the junction with the B847 road to Calvine.
I understand you had been on holiday in Scotland with your son, who lives and studies in London. Also in the car was a family friend. In the afternoon of 23 June, you were driving south on the A9, with a view to returning your rented car, before flying home to China later that week. The section of the A9 on which the incident occurred is an undivided single carriageway. However, in an earlier section of the road, for a distance of approximately 6 miles, the A9 takes the form of a dual carriageway. For those travelling on that section of the southbound carriageway, the northbound carriageway cannot be seen. About two miles before the site of the incident, the two carriageways merge to form a single carriageway. There are road signs alerting drivers accordingly.
What seems to have happened is this. You pulled out onto what had become the northbound lane of the single carriageway. Witnesses travelling south in the car ahead of you assumed that your intention had been to overtake them. However, not only did you fail to accelerate, as might have been expected of someone carrying out such a manoeuvre, but you failed to react when they slowed down to let you back in to the correct lane. It would appear that you simply hadn’t appreciated that the two carriageways had merged into a single carriageway, with tragic consequences.
No sooner had you pulled out onto the northbound lane, when another party of holiday-makers approached from the south, travelling by motorcycle. Your car collided with a motorbike being ridden by Andrew MacPherson. He had no time to react. The resulting impact caused him to suffer catastrophic injuries from which he died. Mr MacPherson’s stepson, Edward Muller, had been travelling immediately behind him on his own motorbike, with his partner riding pillion. He was forced to brake heavily to avoid also being struck. His bike collided with the nearside kerb, causing him to fall to the ground to his injury. I have read a personal statement from Mr MacPherson’s wife, in which she writes movingly of the devastating impact that the loss of her husband has had upon her. No sentence of this court can alleviate the anguish being suffered by Mr MacPherson’s entire family.
In terms of the Scottish Sentencing Council’s guideline on causing death by driving, the seriousness of the offence requires to be assessed by reference to all the circumstances. However, the guideline also provides a table that distinguishes among different levels of seriousness by reference to factors such as the nature or manner of the driving, and the capacity of the driver. There are three levels, A, B and C. Each level corresponds to a sentencing range. Level A is the most serious; Level C, the least serious. For each level, the table sets out a non-exhaustive list of characteristic features. The initial task of the sentencing judge is to determine the appropriate level for any particular case by identifying whether its facts correspond to any one or more of these features. The Scottish guideline, unlike its English counterpart, does not make separate provision for a starting point within the sentencing range associated with any particular level. Therefore, having identified the appropriate level, the judge must also determine where, within the range for that level, the case most appropriately falls. I am satisfied, having regard to the terms of the amended indictment to which you have pled guilty, that your case is most appropriately assessed as a single dangerous manoeuvre falling towards the lower end of Level C.
The guideline then requires the sentencing judge to take account of the various aggravating and mitigating factors.
Clearly, your offence is aggravated by the number of people injured. In addition to the injury to Mr Muller, there were serious injuries to the other occupants of your car. Your son, Chuhan Xu, had been in the passenger seat. He suffered a fractured spine, but fortunately with no neurological deficit. Your friend, Li Fang, was thrown from the rear passenger seat. She suffered a fractured right arm, a fractured jaw and broken teeth. Both passengers were discharged from hospital in the days following the incident. The fact that your own son and a close friend were among those injured is also a mitigating factor.
But there are other powerful mitigating factors. Firstly, there is your genuine and deep remorse. Then there is your lack of experience of driving in the United Kingdom: it appears that this was your first ever visit. Otherwise you have a good driving record, and have no previous convictions of any kind. I take account also of the fact that being incarcerated in a foreign country, where you don’t speak the language, is bound to be a more isolating experience than it would be for anyone who is able to call Scotland their home. You have been on remand since shortly after the accident. Your contact with your husband, who lives and works in China, has been restricted to the telephone.
I have taken account of everything said by Mr Lenehan. While I am satisfied that a sentence of imprisonment is unavoidable, the net effect of these various aggravating and mitigating factors is to bring the length of that sentence below the lower end of the Level C sentencing range. In all the circumstances, therefore, the sentence that I should have imposed, had it not been for the timing of your plea, would have been one of 21 months’ imprisonment. However, because you have pled guilty at the earliest opportunity, I will modify that sentence to one of 14 months’ imprisonment, while backdating that sentence to 25 June 2024 when you were remanded in custody.
Finally, you are disqualified from driving for a period of 5 years, which period requires to be extended by 7 months, being half the period of imprisonment. You will therefore be disqualified from driving for a total period of 5 years and 7 months and until you have passed the extended driving test."