SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing, Lord Cubie made the following comments in court:

“You pled guilty to dangerous driving as a result of which you accept striking and causing the tragic and untimely death of Jim Paterson.

I have read the victim impact statement. Jim Paterson was plainly a much-loved partner, father, grampa, brother and cousin, a valued work colleague, a treasured golf partner and someone with a network of friends and a wide social circle. So the death has affected numerous people of all ages. For the immediate family of course the devastation is the most acute; he was taken from them with no chance to say goodbyes.

The consequences of his loss will hang over the family indefinitely; even now there are times when family members feel overwhelmed with helplessness or grief. The loss was and is devastating.

Plainly, nothing that the court can do is able to compensate for or properly reflect or lessen that loss, but i am grateful for the opportunity of learning more about his life his family and the void that has been left for so many people in dealing with his death; the account that can be taken of the consequences in sentencing is governed by operation of law.

This offence arose as a direct consequence of your drinking, - you were well over the legal limit for driving - and your selfish disregard for the laws of the road, done against the advice of one of the others in the car and in relation to a matter of no urgency.

The speed reached by the point of impact is a material factor – reaching, as the crown narrate a grossly excessive speed of 90 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone while accelerating, giving Mr Paterson no chance of avoidance or survival. The harm caused by this appalling driving could not be higher. The injuries were gruesome and unsurvivable.

I have considered the report; you express regret and remorse; you say that you have “replayed the events over and over in your mind”; you offer no excuses for your behaviour which you can’t explain. You recognise the consequences for the family and friends of Mr Paterson.

You had a number of difficulties in your childhood. You came through that to show an ability to contribute purposefully to society. There is no record.

In sentencing the court must balance a number of considerations, including sentencing objectives of punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and the expression of society’s disapproval.

I take a number of factors into account. In the first place, I take account of the sentencing guidelines provided by the Scottish Sentencing Council, both in relation to the principles and purposes of sentencing and in relation to the sentencing process in determining the appropriate sentence. I recognise the need to achieve fairness and proportionality.

I have also had regard to the sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving. In applying these, firstly, the court has to assess the serious of the offence – that is done by looking at the culpability of the offender and the harm caused. But as the guidelines recognise the level of harm – that a death has been caused – is fixed by law; no greater harm than that can have been caused. No greater loss can arise. So the seriousness is largely determined by the culpability

Seriousness is determined by a number of factors; in your case I consider the relevant factors to be that the driving created a very significant risk; that you drove at grossly excessive speed for the road; that you were impaired through the voluntary consumption of alcohol and, although described as very drunk, ignored a warning from one of your passengers. While all of these factors are within level B seriousness, the combined and cumulative effect of these factors lead me to conclude that the matter should be dealt with in the level A seriousness, with a custodial range of 7 to 12 years.

I then consider additional factors; the deceased was a pedestrian. Given your speed he had no chance to take evasive action. That is an aggravating factor.

You were uninjured; you were told not to return to the car by the taxi driver. You remained there until the police arrived. You offer no excuses and express regret and remorse.

You did eventually plead guilty accepting responsibility and avoiding the ordeal which a trial might present; but this was not done particularly early because as you told the reporter that you were fearful of going to custody. So the family have had to live with the protracted uncertainly of what was happening until the plea was tendered on the first day of the trial.

Sentence

In considering the guidelines which i have mentioned, the headline sentence had you been convicted after trial would have been eight years.

That will be modified to take into account the plea tendered; you are entitled to some modification which I determine at 20 months being just over one fifth of the sentence; the written record makes it clear that you knew about the modification available for tendering a plea. Although it has been indicated that since October 2024 the matter was likely to resolve, that is of limited comfort to the family even if they were aware of that fact.

You will accordingly be sentenced to a period of six years and four months imprisonment backdated to the 17 November when you first were remanded

Disqualification: the law requires disqualification to be imposed. The minimum period of disqualification is five years. I would have imposed a period of eight years disqualification which will be extended in terms of s 35c of the road traffic offenders act 1988 to eleven years and two months and you will require to sit the extended test of competence to drive before any licence will be returned.

That is the sentence of the court.”

12 January 2026