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.
PF v Attiya Sheikh & Omer Sheikh
Jul 18, 2025
On sentencing, Sheriff Gill said:
"Each of you faced a charge of theft of personal protective equipment otherwise known as PPE. On the morning of the trial you pled guilty to reset, known elsewhere as handling stolen goods; between 30th May 2020 and 7th October 2020, both of you knew that you were in possession of PPE, which had been stolen from the NHS. Furthermore, investigations carried out by NHS Counter fraud Investigators revealed that you sold PPE on e-bay to various individuals for financial gain. The financial benefit to you was £7,827.30.
In total 56 transactions were carried out between 6th June 2020 to 2nd October 2020. Aside from that which was sold, the police recovered a further 121 boxes of PPE which contained masks and gloves and a mobile phone hidden within the attic of your home address.
Mrs Sheikh, at the time of the offence you were employed as a doctor within a hospital dealing with the health issues arising from the covid pandemic. Your explanation for your actions is that you were assisting in providing others with access to PPE. You yourself describe your actions 'as a result of unwittingly engaging in criminal activity'.
Mr Sheikh, your explanation for committing the offence is that your wife obtained the PPE from an individual unknown to you and she sold the items online. Your position is that you believed your wife had started a legitimate business venture.
Notwithstanding your explanations, which I find difficult to comprehend, by virtue of your pleas of guilty both of you accept that you knew the PPE had been stolen from the NHS when you had it in your possession and you knew it was stolen when you both advertised it for sale online and, indeed, sold it online.
Neither of you have previous convictions and the reports indicate that you present with low risk and needs in relation to the likelihood of further offending. You have 3 children together and of course I am aware, and take into account, that a custodial sentence will have implications for your children.
I have taken into account the narrative provided by the Crown, the background reports, the character references in respect of Mrs Sheikh and the mitigation advanced on your behalf. I am satisfied that this case does cross the custody threshold. I also have regard to s.204 [3][a] of the Criminal Procedure [Scotland] Act 1995, as I must given that neither of you have any previous convictions nor previously served a custodial sentence; that section provides that a court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment unless the court considers that no other method of dealing with the offender is appropriate. I also have to consider the presumption against short sentences of 12 months or less, and I have done so. I note that both of you are prepared to comply with alternatives to custody.
Mrs Sheikh, you are 46, a health professional, and at the time of the offence you were employed as a doctor within the NHS. This offence occurred between May 2020 and October 2020, a period of 6 months. That time period in my view is significant. This was at a time when the world was in a heightened state of fear and anxiety at the start of the covid pandemic. The NHS was facing an unprecedented crisis. There was an extreme shortage of PPE not only in this country but globally, and society was trying to come to terms with the pandemic. As a doctor you clearly knew that this PPE was essential for your colleagues’ safety and by extension their families. Your dishonest actions deprived your colleagues of this equipment; you chose to sell the PPE that you knew was stolen from the NHS online for financial gain. In fact it is difficult, even for those of us who work day in day out within these courts. to imagine a more egregious breach of trust, not only in respect of your colleagues but in respect of the general public.
Mr Sheikh, you are 48. You are not a medical professional, however you are married to the first accused and I simply don’t accept that you believed your wife had started a legitimate business venture. Therefore, I do not differentiate between you and your wife in determining what sentence to impose. You did this together out of sheer greed.
In my view neither of you have shown any genuine remorse for your conduct.
In respect of each of you the maximum sentence I can impose is 12 months; I am of the opinion that the offence merits that. I am obliged to give you credit for the fact that you pled guilty, albeit on the morning of a trial, and therefore the sentence in relation to each of you is 12 months reduced to 10 months.