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.

Read more about civil judgments.

HMA v James Clacher

 

Oct 1, 2025

At the High Court in Edinburgh, Lord Cubie imposed an extended sentence of 10 years on James Clacher after the offender was convicted of two charges of rape. The custodial term was set at 8 years with a 2 years extension period to be served in the community.

On sentencing Lord Cubie made the following remarks in court: 

"You have been convicted of two charges of rape. Although taking place a year apart, the similarities are striking; you used a dating app; you had lied materially about your age; you turned up earlier than arranged; you attacked each of the victims in their homes and sexually assaulted them. Your attacks took the victims by surprise; they were confused and disorientated about how to respond. You sought to blame the victims.

In relation to your first victim you had also lied about your name. When she confronted and challenged you about attacking her, you resorted to a lie about your receiving a message that your brother had taken ill. That was designed to confuse and distract and to take advantage of her vulnerability. Although your evidence was to the effect that you would have said anything to get away, that was exposed for the self-serving lie that it was by your maintaining the pretence that your brother was ill and the subsequent elaboration - that he had died, a despicable lie told to allow you to pressurise the complainer into backing down. You said you had “misunderstood”, and that you had spoken to a psychologist: these were more dishonest attempts to deflect blame. You then cut off contact with the complainer when you thought you had ensured that the risk to you from the events had passed.

A year later you did the same. I surmise that you thought the dust had settled and you had escaped any repercussions from your original attack. The second victim was also attacked within her home, taking her by surprise and against her clearly expressed wishes. Her wishes made no difference to you.

You are, from the material I have seen, plainly someone who can and did, if he chooses to, contribute to society. But you chose to use these resources for self-serving ends, to fulfil your sexual needs and then to manipulate the situation, to exert pressure and control, in an attempt to manage matters in your favour.

The court also heard about your behaviour to two young female members of your gym. The jury did not require to return a verdict, but the accounts given were so similar in detail, from people who did not know one another, as to make your unacceptable and predatory behaviour towards them clearly established.

And then you fled, using your survival experience to attempt to avoid the consequences of your behaviour. You were eventually traced and returned to Scotland. However impressive your work record and your service in the reserve armed forces, your flight abroad might be viewed as a cowardly action: when you lost control of the consequences of your own conduct, you ran away.

I emphasise that you are being sentenced only for the two charges of which you were convicted. But the other evidence has allowed me to put the two offences in context.

I have considered the victim impact statements which are powerful; your actions have caused long term and wide ranging consequences – in loss of self-esteem, in the destruction of family and other relationships, in trust issues and in employment status. The effects were devastating, leaving the victims feeling broken.

And your self-imposed exile in Spain exacerbated the ordeal for the complainers, who were faced with the prospect of proceedings coming to an end, reconciling themselves to that prospect, and then having to re-engage when you were found and returned.

I have read the report carefully and considered what has been said on your behalf by counsel. You continue to deny any wrongdoing. So there is limited insight, no remorse and a continuing risk of serious damage to others as a result of your attitude. When I factor in the level of manipulation and the steps taken by you to avoid responsibility, I consider that the statutory test for an extended sentenced is met, the normal period of licence being insufficient to protect those at risk.

I take into account the guidelines from the Scottish Sentencing Council; I am satisfied that the principles of punishment, protection and expressing society’s repugnance at you behaviour far outweigh other considerations and I consider, in determining the appropriate sentence, that both your culpability, and the harm caused by you, are high.

In the first place I will grant non harassment orders in favour of each complainer whereby you must not approach contact or communicate with or attempt to approach contact or communicate with either complainer for a period of ten years

You will be subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2003 for an indefinite period of time

Each charge, had it stood alone, would attract a sentence of at least 5 year 3 month; I consider that adding these together would be excessive, so I propose to impose a custodial period of 8 years imprisonment; but that custodial element is not the end of your sentence; you will be subject to an extension period of two years; that extension period will be served in the community; from the date of your release you will be under licence for a period of two years The condition of your licence will be fixed by the Scottish ministers. If during this extension period you fail to comply with the conditions of your licence, it may be revoked and you may be returned to custody for a further period in respect of this case. The court also has power to deal with you if you commit another offence after your release and whilst on licence.

The sentence of the court is accordingly an extended sentence of ten years with a custodial element of eight years, to be backdate until the 21 May 2024 when you were first arrested in Spain."