SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing Judge Kelly made the following remarks in court

"Mr Danquah you have been convicted of two very grave offences.

In relation to charge 1 - an offence of culpable and reckless conduct - the jury found that you repeatedly attempted to climb over a barrier on a footbridge over the M8 motorway in Glasgow and attempted to pull you and your son over the fence with disregard for your safety, the safety of your son and the users of the motorway beneath.

In relation to charge 2, you were convicted of the attempted murder of your son by placing him on your shoulders and stepping in front of a moving train at Garrowhill train station.

Both of these offences were caught by CCTV images – footage of a most harrowing kind which the jury had to view.

Charge 1

It is able to be discerned from footage of you on the footbridge over the motorway that you were there for some time. You allowed your son to run about there. You gathered him up to your front and attempted on a number of occasions to scale the railings there and climb over the fence. In the course of your time on the footbridge you posted a message on Facebook evincing a desire to take your own life. You were interrupted on a number of occasions.  Among those were police officers who approached you and were reassured by the responses you gave that everything was in order.

Charge 2

You made your way later in the day – some hours later - to Garrowhill Railway Station.  Your time there was captured on vivid images.  You made your way down the footpath at the station and on to the platform.  Towards the end of the platform, you picked up your son and stepped into the path of the train pulling into the station.

You suffered injury as a result of your conduct.  Your son was injured and mercifully made a full recovery. 

Criminal responsibility

You pleaded that you lacked criminal responsibility at the time of your conduct at the railway station - that you had a mental disorder that robbed you of an appreciation of the nature or wrongfulness of your conduct. 

The jury listened intently in the course of the trial to a number of psychiatrists whom you had consulted with, and who had treated you over the days, weeks and months following this event.  They were all agreed that you suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the commission of this offence, though not as one in the precise diagnosis.

In deponing that you were aware of what had occurred, Dr Mohammad gave coherent and persuasive evidence about your movements that day based upon the various accounts – inconsistent at times – that you provided to healthcare professionals.

You had argued with your partner about her new relationship saying to her that she should bring it to an end.  She refused.  There was some evidence that she had given an indication that her new partner would be meeting with your son. You left your ex‑partner and made your way to your parents’ house where you picked up your son, then aged 2.  You walked from their home into Glasgow city centre. You met your sister’s boyfriend and were able to converse freely with him.

You came eventually to the footbridge over the M8 in Glasgow at Argyle Street and Waterloo Street.  You had penned a note containing details of your identity, your son’s details together with your parents’ contact details.

Part of Dr Mohammad’s opinion as to your appreciation of the nature and wrongfulness of what you did that day, looked at the way you had behaved with rationality of thought and action before and since the incident at the railway station.  You had the presence of mind to create a contingency plan during that day. To pen a note with contact details provided a degree of insight into what you had planned.

Further evidence was led of that insight and reason following upon two further episodes of attempted suicide or thought of this.  You provided details of a planned attempt to take your own life whilst in the Rowanbank Clinic.  You have stepped back from that.  A suicide attempt at a canal in December 2023 was not proceeded with because, according to your account, you had observed a child nearby and you did not want them to witness your demise. 

This all pointed to you possessing understanding and awareness of the consequences of your actions.  Dr Mohammad was of the view that there was insufficient evidence to establish that you were unable by reason of mental disorder to appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of your conduct at the time of what occurred at the railway station on 2 July 2023. 

The jury agreed.

Sentencing Guidelines

In arriving at a just sentence, the court is enjoined to reflect the core principles of fairness and proportionality. The court assesses the nature and seriousness of your offending behaviour by determining both your culpability and the harm that you caused.

Culpability

In looking at and assessing what you were about that day, the skilled psychiatrists looked at the fact that throughout that day you continued on your journey with your son. You had an argument with your former partner.  She reinforced what she had previously said to you that your relationship was at an end.  This had caused you considerable upset.  The restatement in bald terms of the termination of that relationship was a source of distress to you.

You picked your son up from your parents and made your way to the motorway bridge. He was held by you as you attempted to make your way over the fence at the walkway over the motorway. You assuaged the concerns of the members of the public who engaged with you and the police officers called upon when the alarm was raised that someone was in danger on that walkway over the motorway.

By their verdict the jury decided that at the railway station, you knew that you had picked up your son, and with him you stepped into the path of the train. You appreciated the nature of what was to happen. Your culpability is significant.

Harm

You suffered physical injuries as a result of your conduct.  You have recovered from these. 

Your son sustained bruising and cuts and went on to make a full recovery. I have read over with some care the victim impact statement from his mother. She states that he:

“experienced severe bruising to his face along with several areas of bad swelling especially around his eye leading to a black eye.”

The effect upon the child’s mother was profound.  She was deeply affected.  She gave evidence of seeing her son in hospital after the attempt on his life.  She said she felt “overwhelmed”. In her victim impact statement she says that she still suffers constant anxiety; she fears leaving home and has depression.

In assessing harm, the court in terms of the appropriate sentencing guideline looks also to the potential for harm.  It states:

“In offences where there was a risk of harm, but no actual harm resulted, the court should consider the nature of the offender’s conduct, the likelihood of harm occurring, and the gravity of the harm that could have resulted.”

You endangered the life of your son. You intended to take his life.  The potential for harm was therefore of the most grave sort – death.

The Court also has regard to the many others deeply affected by you conduct.  Police, paramedics and ambulance staff rushed to the scene. The railway platform as described by those who witnessed what you did was chaotic with individuals in various stages of upset, described as “hysterical” in parts. 

A voice of calm in all of that was off duty nurse Louise Fitzsimmons who had to silence the commotion in order to check upon the welfare of you and your son.  She is to be commended for her professionalism in the face of what she had to deal with that day.  The court must acknowledge too the harrowing account of the train driver, Mr Butterman and the undoubted effect that seeing you step into his path with your son had upon him.

Seriousness

In assessing these aspects of harm and culpability together, the court cannot but view this conduct over both charges in a very serious light.  To seek to take the life of your son when aware of what was to happen – and that over a period of some hours - and two attempts - is grave criminality. I am left in no doubt about your intentions on that day – to take your 2 year old son’s life.  You meant to have his mother attend his funeral.

Mental disorder - Offence

All of the psychiatrists agreed that you suffered from some form of mental disorder at the time of the commission of these offences. I take into account in mitigation what the mental disorder at the time of the commission of this offence affords you. 

It is clear on the evidence that you were much affected by the end of your relationship with your former partner in February 2023.  There were attempts - with the intervention of your parents - to have that mended.  Your ex‑partner was adamant that the relationship was at an end.  She moved on.  It is clear that you felt unable to do so.  She formed a new relationship and informed you of this. Dr Mohammad accords to this what was termed to be an adjustment reaction or disorder.

You were intent on taking your own life on 2 July 2023.  You picked your son up from your parents’ house that day and he remained with you.  There was an attempt by you to scale the railings of the footbridge over the M8 with your son. There were interventions. There were opportunities afforded to you to place your son in the care of others.  Instead you took him with you as you continued your journey to Garrowhill railway station.

Although appreciating the nature and wrongfulness of your conduct, I am willing to accept your mental disorder affected your behaviour that day.  The weight of the psychiatric evidence points to you having an adjustment order of moderate severity at that point in time. Dr Semple instead assessed you as having a recurrent depressive disorder.  His conclusions were rejected by the jury. 

This mental disorder informs the process that you followed in seeking to end your own life: your planning, contingencies and communications about that.  It tells us something too about why you would pen a long note about your intentions at the walkway. 

I make it clear for the avoidance of doubt that in line with the jury’s verdict, and their acceptance of Dr Mohammad’s evidence, the mental disorder you suffered from was not so grave to deprive you of the ability to appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of your conduct. 

Again here it is important to narrate here that you were able to exercise reasoned judgment that day;

you interacted with police officers and others such that they were not concerned for you or your son;

there was no disinhibition – momentary or otherwise - in your observed behaviour. 

You were not at that time in receipt of medication, or otherwise engaged with, or under the care of, any psychiatric services.

Mental disorder - Sentence

That mental disorder is also relevant to your ultimate sentence.  It may be that a custodial sentence would have a greater effect on a mentally unwell person.  The court is enjoined, in terms of the appropriate sentencing guideline, to have regard to the additional impact a sentence of imprisonment may have upon you because of your mental ill-health.

As for your present mental health, I note that you were under the care of Dr McCarthy under the auspices of the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT).  He was of the view that you suffered from an adjustment disorder.  Dr McCarthy in the course of giving evidence stated that but for this criminal prosecution it is likely that you would have been discharged from the CMHT.  The nature of your mental disorder was such that you did not require any further specialist input from his team. 

Your present mental health therefore provides limited mitigation in determining upon your ultimate sentence. That is because I consider that it will not render a period in custody disproportionate as a result of the effect of that upon you.

Mitigation

I have listened carefully to all that has been said by senior counsel on your behalf. I have considered the references lodged with the court attesting to the work done by you with various groups in the community. I note that you have been free from trouble before and since the offences.

Criminal Justice Social Work Report

I have also considered the terms of the Criminal Justice Social Work Report. You give an account of your movements on 2 July 2023.  It culminates in a blank at the point that you picked your son up and stepped in front of the train at Garrowhill. You describe that as not being a conscious decision to act.  You claim no memory of it. The author of the report describes you as having a selective memory about that day.

Sentence

In light of the view taken both of your culpability and the harm that you caused and that you could have caused, these were grave offences which justify the court taking a serious view of them. 

You sought to end the life of a 2 year old child. It is difficult to discern a motive for your conduct. It is relevant that, in light of the ending of your relationship, and the beginning of another, you sought to bring about for your ex‑partner, the death of her son. 

This conduct can only result in a significant custodial sentence. 

You require to be punished for your conduct.

The court requires to express its, and society’s, strong disapproval of this conduct.

In all the circumstances there will be a cumulo sentence across both charges of 10 years’ imprisonment backdated to 16 July 2025 when you were remanded in custody.

Non-harassment order

I make you the subject of a non-harassment order that will prohibit you from making contact with your son, directly or indirectly, from approaching or communicating with him in any way or attempting so to do; and that for a period until 4 September 2038.