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 Robert Bruce
Nov 7, 2025
On sentencing, Lord Braid said:
"Robert Bruce, you appear today having admitted a fourth breach of the Community Payback Order (CPO) which was imposed upon you on two charges to which you pled guilty. The breach was a serious one, namely, a failure to give your responsible officer details of your proposed trip to Wigan to take part in a Pool competition, despite having been reminded a short time previously that you must do so. Viewed in the context of your three previous breaches, after each of which you were reminded by me of the consequences of a further breach, the time has come, I am afraid, when the court must draw a line in the sand. On this occasion, I am not prepared to allow the CPO to continue, nor would it be appropriate to do so. I will therefore revoke the order, which means, as you know, that I must now proceed to sentence you again for the two charges to which you pled guilty.
The first was a contravention of section 37(1) of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, which is the offence of older children engaging in sexual conduct with each other; in brief, you engaged in a sexual game of truth and dare with the complainer, who has a diagnosis of mild autism, over a period of 15 months, in the course of which the sexual acts libelled were committed. The complainer initially did not want to do the dares but would do them to “get it over and done with” and on occasions when he refused, you would “sweet talk” him or otherwise persuade him into it. The second charge, charge 3, was a contravention of sections 21 and 22 of the 2009 Act, which are the offences of attempting to intentionally cause a child under the age of 13, to participate in a sexual activity, and causing such a child to be present during a sexual activity, in that you repeatedly attempted to induce the younger brother of the complainer in charge 1 to take part in the sexual dares, which were carried out in his presence, but he refused to do so.
As I said at the time of originally passing sentence, these are serious offences, the offences on charge 3 being the more serious. It was chiefly your own young age at the time of committing the offences that led me to impose a CPO as a direct alternative to custody; but you were well warned that a breach of the CPO would likely result in a custodial sentence then being imposed.
The criminal justice social work report which I have assesses your risk needs as being at very upper end of the moderate range; and as presenting a high risk of committing a sexual offence. Your repeated breaches of the CPO have led to the conclusion that monitoring you safely in the community has become well-nigh impossible. I am satisfied that on this occasion, there is no alternative to a custodial sentence.
I propose to approach sentence in two stages, first to consider the sentence I would have imposed in December 2023 had I not made a community payback order at that time, and then to consider what adjustment, if any, is appropriate to reflect the fact that you have partially completed that order in that you have completed the unpaid work element, which was the punitive element, and been subject to supervision for just under two years.
Taking into account your own age at the time of the offences, the repeat nature of the offending and the whole circumstances, looking at each offence in isolation, charge 1 would have merited a sentence of 1 year’s imprisonment and charge 3 a sentence of 2 years. Having regard to the totality principle a sentence of 3 years would have been excessive and I would therefore have imposed a cumulo sentence of 30 months imprisonment. Any utilitarian value to the plea, which was in any event tendered after the jury had been balloted, has been negated by the subsequent repeated breaches of the community payback order, and so no discount for your guilty plea now falls to be applied. However, to reflect the fact that you have completed the unpaid work, and been supervised for nearly two years, some reduction in that sentence is appropriate. Adopting a broad approach, I impose a cumulo sentence today, on charges 1 and 3, of 15 months' imprisonment.
You will be subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of 10 years. For completeness I will also direct the clerk of court of new to intimate details of the conviction to Scottish Ministers in terms of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007."