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 George Young Murphy
Jan 7, 2025
On sentencing, Lord Arthurson said:
"On 31 March 2023 just after 2.00pm Josephine and Martin Cousland were travelling west on the A85 to Oban to join their daughters for a family holiday on the Isle of Mull, in celebration of their retirement. Their daughters were waiting for them in an Oban hotel.
Having negotiated a series of bends near Arrivain between Tyndrum and Dalmally, Mr and Mrs Cousland emerged from a dip in the road. As they did so, they encountered you, George Young Murphy, driving in the opposing lane. You had performed a multi‑vehicle overtaking manouevre as you approached the brow of the hill. You were driving at excessive speeds. You had ignored a warning sign for a blind summit. In particular, there was a warning sign on the north verge of the short straight section prior to the bends in the road. There was a black and white chevron marker sign on the outside of the bend indicating the severity of the left hand bend. You had overtaken three cars and then, quite extraordinarily, had attempted to overtake a bus, all in the face of an upcoming blind summit and bend which provided you with what must have plainly been insufficient visibility in respect of any oncoming traffic. You collided head on with the vehicle being driven by Mrs Cousland. Mr and Mrs Cousland’s daughters received the catastrophic news of this collision from a police officer by telephone as they awaited their parents in Oban.
Footage of your highly dangerous manoeuvre and the consequent crash was played in court on the morning of your plea of guilty in these proceedings, which plea was tendered at this court on 25 November 2024. From that footage it is clear that you gave the Couslands absolutely no chance. The collision caused by your dangerous driving killed them. They were each pronounced dead at the scene. Mrs Cousland sustained multiple injuries, the most significant of which were to the chest. Mr Cousland sustained significant injuries to his pelvis and chest. In addition, your own adult children, Alexander and Liam Murphy, were your own passengers that day. They were both severely injured in the crash, respectively sustaining a spinal injury and decompression and a broken hip which required reconstruction and the removal of a 25cm section of bowel.
You accordingly stand today, by way of your own guilty plea on a section 76 indictment, convicted of causing the death of Mr and Mrs Cousland and of causing serious injury to Alexander and Liam Murphy, all by your dangerous driving as I have just described that, contrary to sections 1 and 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
You are now aged 54. Your criminal record discloses that you have to date accrued some 11 groups of previous convictions, 4 at indictment level, and you have been the subject of 9 custodial sentences. You have been convicted of multiple offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988, and notably you have 4 convictions for driving while disqualified.
A criminal justice social work report is now available and I have considered the terms of that report in detail. I have in addition listened carefully to the submissions advanced in mitigation on your behalf this morning by your senior counsel. In particular I note what has been said in respect of your expressed remorse, which I assess to be wholly authentic; your acceptance at a very early stage of your guilt in these matters, and the associated and undoubted utility of your plea; and the overall contrast between the immaturity demonstrated by your driving behaviour on the day in question and your approach to resolution of these proceedings.
Turning now to disposal, in terms of the relevant sentencing guideline, I have concluded on the facts of this case that you find yourself at or towards the very top of level of seriousness B. You drove in such a manner that created a very significant, indeed blatantly so in my view, risk of danger to others. You drove at excessive speeds. You ignored a blind summit warning sign. There are no mitigating features present in terms of the guideline, save your own injuries, but there are three particular aggravating features present. Your dangerous driving occasioned the deaths of two people. Your dangerous driving caused severe injury to two people. You have multiple non-analagous but nevertheless relevant previous road traffic convictions, up to and including at indictment level. In addition it is an inescapable fact of this case that you are a continuing offender who has been the subject of many prior custodial disposals. Indeed, the agreed narrative which was read into the record in this case notes that you have a conviction even in 2023 for controlled drugs‑related offending, which does not appear on your schedule of previous convictions.
Mr and Mrs Cousland were a vigorous and extremely popular retired couple, the parents of two loving daughters and friends to many. They loved life and lived it to the full. Your criminal actions robbed Mr and Mrs Cousland and their loved ones of a future together, and saw a family’s hopes and dreams dashed and future generations deprived of their love and guidance. Their daughters lost both of their parents simultaneously, in a moment. Their lives will never be the same. Putting matters bluntly, if I may, on that fatal day your time was more important to you than the lives and welfare of any of your fellow road users.
For these crimes you will today receive a substantial custodial sentence, there being no other appropriate disposal for offending of such gravity. It should be said at this stage that from the perspective of the bereaved in particular in a case of this nature no sentence which this court can impose will come anywhere to amounting to adequate punishment. Sentences in these circumstances should never be regarded as a measure of a family’s loss, and, speaking for myself, I acknowledge that inevitable disconnect between the severity of the loss to those who are bereaved and any ultimate court sentence.
Turning now to disposal, George Young Murphy, you will on this indictment serve a sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, discounted from a period of 11 years due to the timing of your guilty plea. The court is in addition making a lifetime disqualification order in your case. Having regard to the nature of this offence and your driving record, you will indefinitely be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence. You will never drive again.
These disposals will run from the date of your plea of guilty and initial remand into custody in this case, namely 25 November 2024."