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 Kamil Mohammed Nadir
Apr 8, 2025
On sentencing Judge Pattison made the following remarks in court:
"You have been brought back to court for sentencing due to the seriousness of your conviction and the need for a criminal justice social work report and risk assessment due to the fact that you have never served a sentence of imprisonment before. I now have the report which was prepared with your co-operation.
I have considered all that has been carefully said on your behalf today together with the evidence led at trial, the contents of the report and risk assessment and your record of offending – which is for road traffic matters which are not analogous on which I propose to place no weight.
You were convicted of assaulting your son Rebath Kamil to his injury and the danger of his life by driving your car at him at speed and deliberately swerving into him while he was at his work at The Local Car Wash in Clydebank. There had been some form of disagreement between you and your son Rebath and perhaps with other family members, the evidence was not clear at trial; but there was clear video evidence showing the incident. Two of your sons gave evidence to the court – both very reluctantly.
The video showed your car waiting for some seconds before your son appeared on screen. The car, driven by you, then swerved at speed directly in your son’s direction. He was standing beside a supporting metal strut, supporting a canopy over the car wash forecourt. Your car hit the strut and your son pinning him against the forecourt wall. This collision caused injury to your son and yourself and damage to your car.
By sheer luck your son only suffered minor soft tissue injury on his back and left leg, and some bruising. You had only bruising to your face and a minor injury to your chest wall. There was obvious potential danger to life in the circumstances of this attack.
Mr Mullen drew my attention to psychiatric reports and parts of the social work report which show that you have been struggling with your mental health and suffering from a personality disorder and also post-traumatic stress disorder following your life and experiences in Iraq. You appear to have attempted to take your own life on a number of occasions and to have suffered from paranoia which led in 2023 to you being issued with a short-term detention certificate and receiving treatment. You had also been going missing from home without trace at that time. Ultimately both psychiatrists were of the view that you were fit to plead and to participate in your trial.
I take all of this on board as mitigation together with the two references which I also received.
Your offending was serious and my focus in sentencing is punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation where possible. You placed your son’s life at risk by using your vehicle as a weapon and as I have said it is only by good fortune that his injuries were not much more serious or indeed life threatening.
I have assessed your culpability as high given that I infer some degree of preplanning – your vehicle seemed from the video evidence to be lying in wait for your son to appear to some extent and by the choice you made to use your vehicle to attack him. The harm caused was not significant in terms of injuries sustained however that is of lesser consequence in the assessment of seriousness as the lack of serious injury was largely a matter of chance.
Having cross checked with the England and Wales sentencing guidelines – the sentencing range there would be 4 to 7 years with a starting point of 5 years. Your poor mental health is mitigatory as is your previous lack of serious offending but the nature of the attack was so serious as to put the starting point in my view towards the upper reaches of the suggested range. In all of the circumstances and applying the mitigation I have heard you will be sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.
The test for extended sentence is not met.
You spent a period of 49 days on remand at the outset of these proceedings. Having invited the views of your solicitor advocate I therefore back date the sentence to a notional date prior to the date of your most recent remand for sentence, that is, to 16 January 2025.