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 Scott McDonald
Nov 19, 2025
On sentencing Lord Summers made the following remarks in court:
"Mr McDonald you were convicted a by the jury of three offences. The first was an assault to the danger of life. As you know when reversing your van you struck PC McNiven. I accept that it was a glancing blow and that he suffered only a minor injury. The jury accepted however that the assault was to the danger of his life. In other words the blow could have led to him being knocked down, run over and that this endangered his life. I accept that the danger was not high but neither was it negligible.
Had I been sentencing this assault on its own I would have pronounced a sentence of 9 months imprisonment.
Thereafter a Police chase ensued. Although you stated at trial and continue to maintain in the CJSW report that you were seeking to avoid harm, your conduct on the roads specified in charge 5 and in particular on the M74 were reckless in the extreme. Police vehicles attempted to box you in and slow you down. You must have known that their purpose was to bring you to a stop. You did not stop. You drove off road and collided with police cars causing them damage. Whether that collision was because they braked or because you refused to decelerate doesn’t really matter. The chase continued off the M74 and ended a short time later when you bailed out. The M74 is a busy road and you conduct was undoubtedly dangerous. Charge 5 is brought under the RTA 1988 section 2 which has a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.
Although you have previously offended under the RTA, the offence was committed when you were a teenager about 15 years ago and was of a modest nature (driving without insurance). You are now 34. Had I been sentencing this on its own I would have sentenced you to 14 months imprisonment.
The last charge is an attempt to pervert the course of justice. You ran out of the back of your mother’s house and led the Police on a chase. A police helicopter was involved in tracking you down. The helicopter camera records the moment when a group of officers located you and arrested you. Had I been sentencing this on its own I would have pronounced a sentence of 6 months imprisonment.
The total of these sentences is 29 months imprisonment. Given that these charges represent a single course of conduct I consider that a cumulo sentence of two years is appropriate. This will run from 27 January 2025. In relation to the breach of s 2 of the 1988 Act I shall pronounce a 24-month period of disqualification which will run from today’s date.