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 Perry John Quantrell and John Anthony Quantrell
Oct 21, 2025
On sentencing, Lord Harrower made the following remarks:
“Perry John Quantrell and John Anthony Quantrell, on 25 September 2025, you were each found guilty after trial of assaulting Leon Ironside to his severe injury, permanent disfigurement and to the danger of his life. In addition, Perry John Quantrrell, you have been found guilty of dangerous driving contrary to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The circumstances giving rise to the incident in which you assaulted Mr Ironside remain unclear. The jury were shown CCTV recordings in which Mr Ironside arrived with others at the front door of, and was admitted entry to, a flat in Aberdeen. What happened behind that door could not be seen and to a very significant extent remains shrouded in mystery. It is known that Mr Ironside must have been attacked inside the flat with weapons, because he emerged from the flat, shortly after he entered it, very significantly injured. These injuries included multiple lacerations and stabbings to his lower limbs, right wrist, face and abdomen. The jury could not have been satisfied that either of you inflicted them, because they deleted from the libel any reference to striking Mr Ironside with knives or an axe, these being the weapons by which, according to the indictment, those particular injuries were sustained.
However, the jury were also shown CCTV recordings of the now seriously injured Mr Ironside as he emerged, staggering, from the flat into the front garden. In these images, both of you could be seen engaging in a joint attack on Mr Ironside, in which you repeatedly pushed him, kicked him or stamped on him. The jury were shown photographs of a serious, potentially fatal, injury to the area around Mr Ironside’s left eye, and they heard medical evidence that such an injury could only have been caused by a significant amount of force, of the sort that might have been inflicted by a kick or a stamp. It is reasonable to infer, from the verdict returned by the jury, that they must have been satisfied that Mr Ironside sustained that serious injury was a result of your cowardly assault. You may be aware that Mr Ironside has since taken his own life. I have received a moving victim impact statement from his mother, in which she explains that, as a result of this incident, he suffered profound psychological harm. You must each take at least some of the responsibility for that harm.
Perry John Quantrell, you are 33 years’ old. You have a substantial criminal record, mainly for offences of dishonesty, misuse of drugs and road traffic violations. You also have two previous convictions for assault, although I accept that these date from 2010 when you were still a young man. I have taken into account everything said on your behalf and in the social work report prepared for this hearing. You have a history of regular employment, but gave up your most recent job in order to spend more time with your 2-year-old son. As a result, although I am satisfied that a significant custodial sentence is the only appropriate method of dealing with you, the sentences I am about to impose, were it not for these mitigating factors, would have been longer.
In respect of the charge of assault, I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of 3 years, backdated to 25 September 2025, when you were remanded in custody. The charge of dangerous driving relates to a separate incident that took place on 23 March 2024, almost two months later, and in which you sought to evade the attentions of the police by driving through a red light, entering a one-way street, and carrying out other dangerous manoeuvres. I will sentence you to a period of imprisonment of 6 months in relation to that matter, to take effect on the expiry of the sentence previously imposed. In addition, there is a minimum period of disqualification from driving of 12 months that must be imposed in respect of a dangerous driving offence. Having regard to your previous convictions for road traffic offences, but having regard also to the importance of rehabilitation, I propose to impose a disqualification period of 15 months. However, I must also extend the proposed disqualification period in accordance with sections 35C and 35D of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the effect of which, in broad terms, is to ensure that the disqualification period I have proposed will be served in the community. In extending the disqualification period under these provisions, I take account of the fact that the disqualification order must take effect from today’s date, and that you were not disqualified on an interim basis at the date of your conviction, almost one month ago. Accordingly, in fixing the period of extension under both statutory provisions I will deduct one month from the period that is equal to one half of the total period of imprisonment. The period of extension to the proposed disqualification period will therefore be one of 20 months. The result is that you will be disqualified from driving for a total period of 35 months and until the extended driving test is passed.
John Anthony Quantrell, you are now 72 years’ old. You too have a substantial criminal record which includes previous convictions for assault. The present offence was committed after you had been released on licence in relation to an offence of attempted murder. As a result, on 21 February 2024 you were recalled to prison in terms of section 17 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, with 10 December 2029 being your earliest date of release. By law, the sentence I am about to impose must be made concurrent with the sentence which you are still serving for the original offence. I have taken account of everything said on your behalf, and in the social work report. In general, offenders who have participated in a joint attack are equally culpable, regardless of the part each of them played. While the chief mitigating factor in your case is your age, I see no reason to depart from that principle in this case. Therefore you too will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 3 years for assaulting Mr Ironside, backdated to 20 February 2024 when you were remanded in custody.”
21 October 2025
