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 Alexander McQuillan & Richard Mullan
Jan 13, 2026
On sentencing Lord Cubie made the following comments:
“You have each pled guilty to the charge of the murder and have thereby accepted responsibility for the death of Michael Beaton, each in a different way. Mr Beaton died as a result of a combination of head injuries sustained in the road traffic collision, blood loss from the machete injuries to his face and blunt force injuries to his chest.
Nothing that the court can do can reflect the loss occasioned to the family of Mr Beaton; As I indicated when the pleas were tendered, I have read the victim impact statement from Mr Beaton’s elder daughter – the consequences to the family left, particularly to his children, are devastating and permanent. You both bear responsibility for that.
Richard Mullan, you went out seeking a confrontation with Mr McQuillan; you drove a car with cloned number plate which was later destroyed and when you came across Mr McQuillan you determined to assault him using the car. You drove a car deliberately and repeatedly at a person that you thought was Mr McQuillan but in fact was Mr Beaton; you drove at him not once but twice, deliberately targeting him and intending to seriously injure; this was no spontaneous reaction but a deliberate and brutal act of extreme violence using your car as a deadly weapon. You drove away leaving the victim to his fate. Your remorse and regret appear to some extent to be about the identity of the victim rather than for the act of killing.
Alexander McQuillan you had armed yourself earlier in the day again plainly anticipating a confrontation of some sort; after Mr Beaton had been severely injured by Mr Mullan’s actions, and despite the obvious injuries, his complete inability to provide any resistance, and while others were in the process of tending to the victim, you opportunistically and callously attacked him with a machete, and on your own part caused unsurvivable injuries. The notion that this was to protect yourself is clearly fanciful. You were reckless about the consequences for him. You show some insight and remorse, although it is described as superficial.
In terms of the report, Mr Mullan you are remarkably candid about your drug dealing – but it was the apparent gateway to the relationship with the victim and your involvement in the events leading up to the murder, another example of the scourge to society which controlled drugs represent. In your favour there is a limited record, you tendered a plea of guilty on 8 November 2024 and you are entitled to the benefit of the Young Person’s Guidelines from the Scottish Sentencing Council.
For you Mr McQuillan the report reflects a life characterised by offending. I have commented that the report regards your remorse as superficial. You have a previous conviction from the High Court for assault to danger of life using a knife; there is limited mitigation other than that your plea of guilty was tendered early, being at the diet of trial so has less utility.
Both of you acted in a way which showed a complete disregard for the consequences of your actions and for the life of the victim.
The sentence for the crime of murder is fixed by law and is one of imprisonment for life. The court requires as part of the sentencing exercise in cases of this nature to select a period known as the punishment part of that fixed disposal. The punishment part is the number of years which you must serve before you can be considered for release on life licence. The punishment part takes into account the sentencing requirements of retribution and deterrence.
For you Mr Mullan, I fix the punishment part of your life sentence at 16 years from a headline sentence of 18 years, the modification reflecting the timing of the plea. That sentence will run from the 5 April 2024 when you were remanded in custody.
For you Mr McQuillan, I impose a sentence of 18 years modified from 19 years to take account of the timing of the plea; that sentence will run from 4 February 2024 to take account of the date of the remand and the sentence of 143 days imposed in December 2023.”
13 January 2026