SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing, Sheriff McGlennan told Gallacher:

“Craig Allan Gallacher you have pled guilty to abducting the late Nathan Dawson on 14 December 2024 whilst acting with another person. What follows are the reasons for the sentence which I will impose for that crime.

Procedural History

The salient procedural history of your case is that you first appeared on the matter, from custody and on petition, upon 16 December 2024. Your case was continued for further examination, and you were remanded in custody. You were fully committed on 24 December 2024 and again remanded in custody. You have remained remanded in custody in relation to this case since that date.    

Subsequently on 10 November 2025, on the morning of your trial but prior to jurors being balloted, you pled guilty. The information before me does not support a plea being offered any earlier than that.   

The narration provided to me by the Crown explained that the other person referred to in the libel of the charge was your brother, Daniel Gallacher. He pled guilty to his involvement on 23 September 2025. He pled guilty to a charge libelling both the abduction of, and an assault upon, Nathan Dawson. Separately he pled guilty to possessing an offensive weapon, that being the item he assaulted Nathan Dawson with. He tendered these pleas by way of section 76 letter.  I was told that he received a sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment in respect of the abduction and assault, of which 6 months was attributable to a bail aggravation. Separately he received a sentence of 6 months imprisonment for possessing the offensive weapon.         

The sentencing purposes and process

In determining sentence my sentencing objectives became:

Protection of the public

The sentence imposed seeks to protect the public from your offending behaviour. It is designed to deter any such future offending behaviour.

Punishment

It is appropriate that the sentence include condign punishment for your criminal behaviour.

Expressing disapproval of offending behaviour

The sentence is also intended to serve as an expression of the community’s concern about, and disapproval of, the crime committed. 

The offence

The crown narration 

On 10 November I was provided with a narrative of events by the Fiscal Depute, augmented by images of the moments in which the abduction began.   

I was advised that shortly after 1pm on 14 December 2024 Nathan Dawson was in the area of Calder Street, Coatbridge to meet a friend. I was shown CCTV footage which showed Mr Dawson walking through the car park situated to the side of Calders’ convenience store at Kelvin Street. At this time a dark coloured VW Golf car driven by your brother Daniel Gallacher proceeded along Calder Street from the direction of the Whifflet district. It turned into Kelvin Street and then into the entrance of the car park. It pulled to a halt there, next to Mr Dawson. Daniel Gallacher exited the vehicle from the driver's door. Simultaneously you got out of the front passenger door. Together you both approached Nathan Dawson and ushered him into the rear passenger seat of the car. Daniel Gallacher returned to the driver’s seat, whilst you went to sit in the rear side rear passenger seat. This purposefully positioned you next to Mr Dawson. Daniel Gallacher then began driving the car, and everyone in it, away. Around this point in the incident Daniel Gallacher also made a threat to Mr Dawson: " You know the metal bar I am talking about its going to cave your skull in".  He added: "I'm murdering you".

The car was driven along various roads in Coatbridge, Airdrie, and Greengairs before coming to a stop at a location in the Cumbernauld area that was described as being semi-rural. The journey in the vehicle from the car park to the location in Cumbernauld took 20 minutes or thereby. Thereafter Mr Dawson was made to exit the vehicle and was assaulted by Daniel Gallacher with a wrench. You took no part in that assault. At the conclusion of that assault Daniel Gallacher threw Nathan Dawson’s phone away.  He then drove the car away with you in it. Nathan Dawson was abandoned where he was. Mr Dawson was able to recover his phone, but it was out of charge. He walked to a nearby field where some men were working, they enabled him to call the police.  

At the time of the commission of this offence you were subject to two bail orders. On 6 February 2024 you had been granted bail relative to an allegation of assault to severe injury and permanent disfigurement. You pled guilty to that charge on 21 October 2024. You were awaiting  sentence on that matter when you abducted Mr Dawson. This is the last conviction on the schedule before me.

On 24 October 2024 you were granted bail having pled not guilty to an alleged contravention of section 38 (1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 raised on summary complaint. I was advised that this matter has been discontinued by the Crown.

In due course investigations took place which resulted in your arrest and court appearance. Subsequently, and tragically, on 21 October 2025, Nathan Dawson ended his own life. At that time, he had expressed to family members his terror of potential repercussions should he give evidence in your trial. I was also advised that Corey Dawson, who was also to be led as a witness had this trial proceeded, has expressed his own concerns as to his safety and seeks a non-harassment order preventing you from approaching or contacting him or attempting to do so and from entering Church Street in Coatbridge.

Defence submission upon the narrative

The Crown narration was not disputed by you. By way of background it was explained to me by your solicitor that Nathan Dawson was not known to you prior to 14 December 2024. You were aware that your brother and Nathan Dawson had been on good terms historically, but there had been some form of rift between them a year or so prior to the abduction. You were unaware as to why they had fallen out. On the morning of the abduction, you had asked your brother to attend at your house to help move a fridge, as you had recently suffered a heart attack. He did so. Once that task was completed you were given a lift by him to meet with your wife.

During that journey Daniel Gallacher received a call from a woman with whom he had had a previous relationship. She made a complaint about a man loitering in the area of her home address. The information provided suggested that the man was Nathan Dawson. Your intended journey was then set to one side. You and your brother began to look for that man, having in mind that the man you were looking for was Nathan Dawson. You caught sight of Mr Dawson in the car park and events unfolded as narrated by the Crown.   

Seriousness of the offence

I began my consideration of the sentence to be imposed by assessing the seriousness of the offence. That in turn required assessment of the level of your culpability in relation to the offence and the harm caused.

Culpability

It is clear that you intended to cause harm to the late Mr Dawson. It is evident that in the early afternoon of 14 December 2024 you and your brother had embarked upon an active search for him. When he came into sight you acted swiftly to get him into your car. Once he had been put into the rear of the vehicle, he was effectively your prisoner. You changed your seating position so that you were sat next to him, rendering impossible any attempt to escape. You are a powerfully built man, then and now, there was no prospect that he could have overcome you to try and exit the car. At the start of that journey Mr Dawson was threatened in a very sinister way by your brother. Thereafter Mr Dawson sat trapped whilst he was driven away from Coatbridge for 20 minutes. He would have had no idea where he was to be taken to. There can be little doubt that he must have been terrified, fearful for his life.

When the journey came to an end, he was some miles away from where he had been when he was snatched from the street. He was then assaulted. You had no part whatsoever in the commission of that assault, but it cannot be ignored that the conclusion of the abduction episode saw Mr Dawson abandoned having been attacked by your brother and having had his phone thrown away. The latter was undoubtedly an effort to frustrate any attempt by Mr Dawson to phone the police, or at the least substantially delay that taking place.

It may well be that a plan to search for and abduct Mr Dawson was only formed during the day of 14 December 2024, but what took place was not a dynamic event embarked upon in the moment. There was a significant element of premeditation and calculation. Your culpability for what took place is therefore at a high level.            

Harm

The harm caused by this offence can be said to have two aspects. Firstly, as said, and most obviously, Mr Dawson would have been caused significant mental anguish during the commission of the crime.

Harm also includes the impact on the victim after the commission of the offence. The crown narration addressed the same. On 21 October 2025 Nathan Dawson ended his own life. As said at that period in time he had expressed to family members his terror of potential repercussions should he give evidence at your trial. I cannot, and do not, proceed on the basis that repercussions were planned by you, or on behalf of you, or that they were likely to take place. What is clear however is that the overall event of his abduction continued to consume Nathan Dawson’s thoughts at the time of his death. He was 20 years’ old when he ended his life. That tragedy of that event and the profound loss suffered by his family and friends are both immeasurable.  Having taken both of these aspects of the offence into account, I assessed harm to be at a high level.

Examining both your level of culpability and the harm quotient, I assessed this offence to have a high level of seriousness. Its gravity is such that I deemed the threshold for imposing of a custodial term to have been easily met.

Aggravating and mitigating factors 

I then moved on to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors pertinent to your case.

Aggravating factors

Vigilantism

The explanation proffered for your involvement was that your actions were prompted by concerns expressed to your brother about Mr Dawson loitering at his friend’s address. It first falls to say that it is simply not established that these concerns were justified. Secondly, the appropriate response to such concerns is of course to contact the police. That is what you and your brother should have urged your brother’s friend to do. However, rather than take that proper course, you decided to take matters into your own hands, in a most appalling way. It is notable that having put Mr Dawson into the car against his will, there was no effort to enquire whether he was the person so loitering, instead his life was immediately threatened.

Vigilante behaviour of this type is not only entirely unjustified but strikes at the rule of law upon which we are all entitled to depend. If allowed to pass unchecked it promotes lawlessness and engenders fear in the community. It is a significant aggravating factor.

Age disparity

This was a crime perpetrated upon Nathan Dawson when he was 19 years of age. By contrast you were 40 years’ old at that time. The age disparity, the abduction of a young man by two older men, also aggravates the offence

Previous convictions

Your record of previous convictions discloses that you have offended on eight occasions between 2005 and 2024. Many of these convictions are for contraventions of road traffic legislation. Of those most are, and in relative terms, minor offences. However, there was an instance, when you were much younger, of driving whilst disqualified. All of these matters attracted fines. I consider that these convictions serve only as a minor aggravation of the offence of abduction. The existence of the conviction for driving whilst disqualified does however impact on how the bail aggravations should be sentenced. That offence and the commission of an offence whilst on bail both exhibit a wilful disregard for orders of court designed to protect the public.        

Those matters aside there are two serious convictions upon your schedule. In 2008 you were convicted of rape in the High Court of Justiciary. You received a sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment. Later, in October of last year, you were convicted upon indictment at Airdrie Sheriff Court of assault to severe injury and permanent disfigurement. I was told that the case will call for sentence to be imposed in January 2026. The gravity of this prior offending significantly aggravates the offence.            

Mitigating factors  

Mitigation of the offence

I accept that your brother was the principal actor in this matter, but you were a willing and essential accomplice to him. I am told that you were contrite about, and bitterly regret, your involvement.

General mitigation

In terms of general mitigatory matters I was informed that you have worked recently as an HGV driver, but that at the time of the offence the heart attack you suffered had prevented you from working in that trade. Nevertheless, you hope to be able to do so again when released from prison. I was advised that by necessity you have been separated from your family including your young child during your period of remand, and this has caused you anguish.  I have taken these factors into account in selecting sentence.       

Sentencing decisions        

Imposition of imprisonment

Having examined the information before me I reached the view that it was neither feasible nor appropriate to impose a non-custodial sentence designed to rehabilitate you, nor one that had provision of an opportunity to make amends as a goal. My sentencing objectives required to be those previously identified. They could only be met by imposition of a prison term. I was also very clear that the aggravating factors in your case greatly outweighed the mitigating factors.

Cognisant that a prison term should not be longer than that which is necessary to meet the sentencing objectives, I have nonetheless decided that the period of imprisonment requires to be substantial.   

Sentence imposed upon Daniel Gallacher    

I bear in mind the sentence imposed upon Daniel Gallacher and the principle that sentencing decisions should treat similar cases in a similar way. That does not mean that your case and that of your brother should be dealt with in exactly the same way. Nor does it entail that his greater involvement entails that your sentence should lesser than was imposed upon him. He pled guilty at an earlier stage. I am unaware of his background of offending or of the aggravating and mitigating factors that were set out for the court in his case.

Headline term of imprisonment  

I will impose a headline sentence of 50 months’ imprisonment, of which 8 months is attributable to the bail aggravations. 

Modification

I am prepared to make modification of sentence to reflect the stage at which the plea of guilty was entered. That finally took place very shortly before the jury ballot was due to commence. That might be seen as sufficient reason to demur from the proposition that any modification should be provided. However, there was substantial deletions made from the indictment. As such I will modify the sentence imposed, but only do so by 3 months. The net sentence imposed is therefore 47 months’ imprisonment.

Backdating

That sentence of 47 months’ imprisonment will be backdated to 16 December 2024.

Non-harassment order

I am persuaded that the unopposed motion for a non-harassment order should be granted. The duration of the order requires to be substantial. It will be for 20 years. During that time, you may not approach, contact, or communicate with Corey Dawson nor may you attempt to do so, in addition you cannot enter or attempt to enter Church Street, Coatbridge."

13 November 2025