SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing, Judge Jackson KC told Cunningham:

“You were found guilty unanimously by the jury at your trial of five separate charges related to domestic abuse and/or violence to intimate partners and, on one occasion, your partner’s mother. I have read the very full criminal justice social work report and while I disagree with some of the assessments and conclusions contained in that report, largely it is helpful in shining a light on you and your history as it is written by somebody who knows you well. Having read that report I am left with a sense that you are an arrogant and very immature young man. Often, that combination of qualities tends to mask deeper problems. That may be the case with you – only time will tell. As the report reflects, however, in considering sentence in your case I am bound by the terms of the SSC Young Persons sentencing guideline. In terms of that guideline, I have to be mindful of the capacity for change which you may have. It may well be that when you are older you will look back at these past few years and wonder what on earth you were doing. In any event, I am satisfied that there is scope for change on your part and that, accordingly, there is an alternative to custody available to the court today.

I am conscious of the logistical difficulties which exist because of where you live. I consider that it reflects well on you that you wish to maintain a relationship with your daughter on the mainland and while I consider that you should certainly be punished because of your actions, I do not consider that she should be punished by depriving her of the right to see her dad.

I am also mindful of the work history that you have had. It seems to me that you leave jobs as soon as you start them. Nonetheless, however, it is plain that you are quite capable of undertaking work and that will be reflected in the order I will shortly impose. I note your remark to the author of this report that you are not especially concerned by the prospect of a prison sentence being imposed today. Frankly, I don’t believe that. I think it is something that you say simply to create an impression of yourself. I would be very concerned for how you might be affected by the imposition of a lengthy prison sentence. Your arrogance and immaturity would not serve you well. Please understand that the order which I impose today is very much a direct alternative to such a prison sentence and if you are found to be in breach of this order it is highly likely that a prison sentence will be imposed. Also, I will impose a review of this order in 12 weeks time so that I can have an understanding of your level of participation in supervision and unpaid work. I would hope that your attendance could be arranged via WebEx rather than requiring you to travel to Edinburgh but I will leave that with others to consider.

I must also give consideration to the victims of your crimes. It should not be thought, for one minute, that because I am stepping back from the imposition of a prison sentence that I diminish the effect that your actions have had on your victims. It was clear from their evidence that your behaviour has caused fear and alarm and doubtless other harms to all of your victims. They are entitled to protection from you, and I will impose non-harassment orders of 10 years.

So far as you are concerned, I will impose a community payback order with the following conduct requirements. You will be subject to supervision for the entirety of that period and you will undertake all training and counselling proposed by your supervising officer. You will carry out unpaid work of 240 hours and you will be given 12 months to complete those hours. You will also be subject to a restricted movement requirement for a period of five months which will run from 7 PM to 7 AM each night. As suggested in the report that requirement will be subject to suspension to enable you to travel to the mainland solely for the purpose of seeing your daughter. You will require to provide vouching for any such trip in advance of any travel and you can only make that journey if your supervising officer agrees to it in advance. I am mindful of the impact on your partner that this requirement will have but there is, of course, nothing to stop her from visiting you. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not impose a residence undertaking. I consider that to be an unnecessary intrusion into your life. A further requirement of the order is that you advise the social work department of any new relationship that you may enter so that they may consider whether or not to advise such a partner of your true history. Please understand, Mr Cunningham, that your history is just that. You cannot rub it out and pretend it does not exist. I would urge you to engage with the help and guidance that will be offered to you throughout these coming years. If you are to maintain a healthy adult relationship then you will have to reflect on your history and the damage and harm you have caused to those who tried to love you in the past.

The order of this court then is a CPO with conduct requirements as listed above and a review date of here at Edinburgh High Court. I require to add that of the hours imposed 30 relate to the domestic aggravation and 30 relate to the aggravation by reason of involving a child. Thereafter, a further 20 relate to the bail aggravation in charge five.”

21 April 2026