SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing, Judge Miller made the following comments in court:

"Michael William Geddes and Brodie Alexander Burns, you were convicted after trial of an appalling crime: whilst acting together, you invaded the home of Mary Shaw, a 73-year-old woman, who lived alone in her house in Peterhead, demanded money from her, threatened her with violence and assaulted her to the danger of her life, all with intent to rob her. It is clear that only significant sentences of imprisonment would represent an appropriate response from the court to such a serious crime.

By their verdict the members of the jury were clearly satisfied that,  even if one of you took the lead in entering the complainer’s house, making the demands for money, making the threats and committing the acts of violence to which I have referred, everything which was done was within the scope of a common criminal purpose or plan involving both of you. Therefore, as far as the law is concerned, you are both responsible for everything that was done to the complainer.  

The jury at your trial were not asked to decide precisely what role each of you played in this crime, and the fact that the jury convicted both of you in the same terms means that it is not possible to draw any conclusions from the jury’s verdict about that issue. In these circumstances I must form my own view based on the evidence. In doing that, I am not bound by the analysis of evidence which the crown proposed to the jury in the closing stages of your trial. The sentences which I intend to impose reflect my own understanding of the evidence – particularly the clear evidence of identification – which was led at your trial.

Having been woken from her sleep by a noise at the back of her house in the early hours of 9 July 2023, the complainer opened her bedroom window, on the first floor of her house, to investigate the source of the noise. She then endured a nightmarish ordeal when you, Geddes, who had been standing on the roof of the conservatory close to the complainer’s bedroom window, forced your way into the complainer’s bedroom via the open window, pushing her backwards in the process, so that she struck her head against a chest of drawers. You, Geddes, then demanded that she give you £10,000 in cash which you wrongly believed that she had in her house, and threatened to kill her if she did not comply.

Showing admirable composure and presence of mind, the complainer was able to make her way downstairs unaccompanied, on the pretext of getting the money which had been demanded – money which she did not have. Having gone downstairs, the complainer was able to make her way outside into the front garden, where she was briefly able to alert neighbours by shouting for help before you, Geddes, dragged her back inside the house and assaulted her by repeatedly stamping on her head and chest, inflicting fractures to a bone in her chest and to a rib, and damage to her sinuses for which she continues to receive treatment. The jury at your trial accepted that the nature of this assault placed the complainer’s life in potential danger and caused her severe injury and permanent impairment.

The precise nature of the role played by you, Burns, in these events was less clear from the evidence led at trial. Having regard to the jury’s verdict, it is not necessary for me to resolve that issue. However, evidence was led at trial which clearly identified you as being present in the rear garden of the complainer’s house at around the time of the events I have described. When Geddes was in the complainer’s bedroom with her, a voice which could only have been yours was heard speaking to Geddes via the open window, asking whether he had “got the money yet.” Witnesses saw you in the vicinity of the complainer’s house very shortly after these events. Finally, your DNA was recovered from the pyjama top which the complainer was wearing during this incident.

With regard to the question of motivation, evidence was led at trial that you, Burns, admitted when you were interviewed by police officers later on the day of this incident that you were in debt to unnamed individuals. You mentioned a number of sums of money in relation to this debt, one of which was £10,000. During a subsequent telephone call to the police ‘101’ system, you alleged that Geddes believed that he had seen a significant quantity of cash in the complainer’s house on a previous occasion when he had carried out some work for her. According to the complainer’s evidence, £10,000 was the sum of money which Geddes demanded from the complainer within her bedroom. This evidence would appear to point clearly towards the particular financial motivation for this crime.

The complainer vividly described in her evidence and in her victim impact statement the lasting physical and psychological impact of your criminal acts on her, including a significant and continuing impact on her peace of mind and her freedom to enjoy living without fear in her own home.

Michael Geddes, at the age of 48 you have a number of previous convictions, mostly from English courts, for road traffic offences and crimes of disorder, violence and dishonesty. Your last conviction, from Peterhead Sheriff Court in 2015, was for housebreaking within intent to steal and assault. According to your schedule of previous convictions, you have never served a sentence of imprisonment.

Brodie Burns, you are aged 29 and you have a more extensive record of previous convictions, including two convictions for being concerned in the supplying of controlled drugs, for which you were sentenced to detention for 20 months in 2015, and convictions for road traffic offences, crimes of dishonesty, violence and disorder, domestically aggravated offending and breach of court orders. Your last conviction was at Aberdeen Sheriff Court in 2024, for breach of a bail order, for which you served a short sentence of imprisonment.

It does not appear to me that your criminal records, on their own, justify any difference in sentence as between you for this crime.

The reports prepared for today’s hearing indicate that you each continue to deny your guilt. I must sentence you on the basis of the jury’s guilty verdicts. I have noted what each of the reports says about your personal circumstances.

Michael Geddes, your risk assessment is expressed in a number of different ways in your report. However, having regard to the very significant change in your physical capabilities since you committed this offence – in that you have suffered the amputation of your leg and now use a wheelchair – in my view you could not now be regarded as posing a high risk of further serious offending. Brodie Burns, you have no such physical issues and your report assesses you as having a maximum level of risk and needs.

I have taken full account of everything which counsel for each of you has said on your behalf this morning.

I intend to impose different sentences on each of you taking account of your individual risk assessments and of the evidence relating to the roles played by each of you in committing this very serious crime against a lady who, although clearly a very impressive and independent person, was nevertheless vulnerable because of her age and the fact that she lived alone.  

Michael Geddes, it is clear that only a substantial sentence of imprisonment would be appropriate in your case. You will serve a period of seven years and six months’ imprisonment, to run from 12 November 2025, when you were remanded in custody following the jury’s guilty verdict. That sentence would have been eight years but for the change in your personal circumstances since this offence, specifically the amputation of your leg.

Brodie Burns, it is equally clear that a substantial sentence of imprisonment is appropriate in your case. Taking account of your risk assessment, I am satisfied that the period for which you would otherwise have been on licence in relation to that sentence would not be adequate to protect the public from the risk of serious harm from you when you are eventually released. For that reason, I am going to pass extended sentence of nine years in relation to you. The first part of that sentence will be an immediate period in custody of seven years, to run from 7 November 2025, when I had cause to withdraw your bail and remand you in custody on the second day of the evidence during your trial.

However, this immediate period in custody is not the end of your sentence. The second part of your sentence will be served in the community. From the date of expiry of the custodial period, you will be under licence for an extension period of two years. The conditions of your licence will be fixed by the Scottish Ministers. Those conditions will be designed to address the risk of further offending which you present. If you fail to comply with the conditions of your licence during the extension period of your sentence, it may be revoked and you may be returned to custody for a further period. The court also has power to deal with you if you commit another offence after your release and while you are on licence.

The crown has requested that I make a non-harassment order in relation to each of you for the protection of the complainer.

Having regard to the serious nature of the crime which you committed against her, the fact that you both have a substantial connection to Peterhead, where she lives, and her request that the court make non-harassment orders for her protection, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make a non-harassment order in relation to each of you in order to protect the complainer from harassment by either of you in the future.

I will therefore make a non-harassment order in relation to each of you in terms of S. 234A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, prohibiting you from approaching, contacting or attempting to approach or contact the complainer by any means or in any way including contact or attempted contact in person, by letter, phone, text, email or social media, and whether directly or via any third party.

Each of these non-harassment orders will remain in force for an indefinite period; in other words, there is no time limit to either of these orders.  Breach of the terms of a non-harassment order is a criminal offence."

19 January 2026