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.

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 Logan Carlin

Feb 9, 2026

At the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh, Lord Summers sentenced Logan Carlin to 7 years and 4 months imprisonment. The offender pled guilty to two charges of wilful fire-raising linked to organised crime.

Lord Summers made the following comments when delivering sentence in court:

"Mr Carlin in this matter you have pleaded guilty to two charges of wilful fire-raising. On 6 and 16 March 2025 you threw bottles filled with liquid accelerant into properties in Edinburgh and set fire to them both.

The first property you attacked was a beauty salon. It was part owned by a person who had links to a member of a serious organised crime gang. You were associated with a rival gang. The attack was designed to retaliate against that rival group.

I am advised that there was smoke damage and significant heat damage to part of the salon’s main area. The salon was on the ground floor of a block of flats. Had the fire taken hold, the residents of the properties above would have been in mortal danger. Thankfully the fire did not spread, and no one was hurt.

The second property attacked was a garage. Again, it was operated by someone with links to a rival serious organised crime group. The garage suffered extensive structural and water damage. From the pictures I was shown it would appear that a number of motor vehicles were burnt. The financial cost associated with this attack was, I understand, significant.

The two attacks were ten days apart and were evidently part of course of action undertaken by you.

In assessing this matter, I notice that you have some previous convictions. I do not consider they are analogous to the present offences, and I have decided I should not take them into account.

Both charges are associated with aggravations under serious organised crime legislation. I am satisfied that this was a significant factor in this case and explains why these two crimes were committed. I consider that I should uplift each sentence by one year to take account of the aggravations. There are also two minor aggravations connected to a failure to observe a bail undertaking and a breach of bail. I uplift both sentences by one month to take account of these factors.

Had I been sentencing charge 1 on its own I would have sentenced you to 6 years imprisonment and attributed 11 months to the aggravation under serious organised crime and one month to the failure to fulfil an undertaking.

Had I been sentencing charge 2 on its own I would have sentenced you to 9 years imprisonment and attributed 11 months to the aggravation under serious organised crime and one month to the breach of a bail order.

I acknowledge however that these crimes were connected in their nature, timing and motivation. In these circumstances I propose to pronounce a cumulo sentence and to apply the principle of totality. I am obliged also to take account of your youth and consider whether you were to any extent marked by immaturity in committing these crimes. You were 23 at the time of the offences and today at sentencing you are still under the age of 25. I consider that I should take some account of your age. That being so I shall make an adjustment downwards of 1 year and pronounce a cumulo sentence of 11 years.

I apportion 11 months of that to the serious organised crime aggravations and 1 month to the breaches of bail.

You pleaded guilty at an early stage and it is appropriate to apply the usual sentencing discount of one third. I shall therefore sentence you to seven years and four months imprisonment which will take effect from your detention on 8 April 2025."

9 February 2026