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 Antonjo Selami
Apr 23, 2025
On sentencing, Lord Doherty said:
“Antonjo Selami, you have pled guilty to the production of cannabis, a class B drug, in contravention of section 4(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The period involved was 52 days. The operation was on a very large scale, capable of producing industrial quantities of cannabis for commercial dealing. It was well organised and sophisticated, using high value equipment and very large premises which were secured in order impede entry. There were 6001 cannabis plants with a potential value at maturity of between £1,200,200 and £3,600,600.
I proceed on the basis that your role was as a gardener, rather than someone higher up the chain. However, you had awareness and understanding of the scale of the operation because its scale and purpose must have been obvious to you.
I have regard to all that has been said on your behalf. There are no previous convictions libelled. I give you credit for offering to plead guilty before the first preliminary hearing on 16 September 2024.
This was a serious offence. Your involvement was significant because of the length of the period during which you offended and your awareness of the scale of the operation. In arriving at an appropriate headline sentence, I have had regard to the Sentencing Council for England and Wales Guidelines for the production of controlled drugs. The harm here is category 1 because the operation was capable of producing industrial quantities for commercial use. Your role was a significant one, for the reasons I have already given. The sentencing range for such offending is 5 years to 7 years. In view of the fact that none of the other factors indicative of significant involvement (such as directing others) were present, I think it appropriate to select a headline sentence at the bottom of that range.
Had you not offered to plead guilty when you did, the sentence I would have imposed would have been 5 years’ imprisonment. In view of your early offer to plead guilty, the sentence which I do impose is 3 years 9 months’ imprisonment. That sentence is backdated to 22 January 2024, the date you were first remanded in custody.”