SENTENCING STATEMENTS

Upon sentencing, Sheriff Komorowski made the following remarks:

"The Scottish Sentencing Council’s guideline on The Sentencing Process notes that “The sentencing decision may be made swiftly”, and that the court “does not have to give full reasons” [p. 3, § C, D]. The courts have described sentencing as an “instinctive synthesis” or a “delicate art based on competence and expertise” [Gemmell v. HM Advocate [2011] HCJAC 129; 2012 JC 223, para, 59].

"Nonetheless, sometimes cases require a more methodical approach, and merit a more detailed explanation.

"The circumstances of these offences and offender are fairly common for the sort of case that often is dealt with in the sheriff court, though, as the offender’s lawyer observes, these circumstances as set out in the social worker’s report makes for depressing reading. Nonetheless, I am going to set out in some precise detail what these circumstances are, and my reasoning for sentence, not because there is anything especially unusual about them, but because they illustrate some aspects of the challenges in imposing an appropriate sentence. This is just one example, but I think it might help explain some of the law, practice, and principles of sentencing as well as some practical issues. I think it is important to mention some cases like this to help inform the public.

"The offender has suffered tragedy in his family at a young age. He truanted from high school and moved to a residential school, which he told a social worker was a positive development for him. He left school at 16 and then completed a four-year horticultural apprenticeship, but struggled to find work in that field. He then worked as a casual labourer but is now assessed as medically unfit for work due to his mental health. He says, though, that he is in good physical health.

"The offender has used various drugs, using cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamines, cocaine and some form of street substitute for diazepam from his adolescence. He began drinking alcohol at the age of 14. Before his latest arrest he was consuming crack cocaine and abusing alcohol.

"He has an extensive criminal record. When he was 16, he was convicted of driving without a licence. When he was 17, he was convicted of theft. As a 20 year old he was convicted of two charges of assault. One involved a knife and caused permanent disfigurement. Each assault caused severe injury. He was sentenced to probation.

"There then followed various offences of property damage, fraud, disorderly behaviour, and threatening or abusive behaviour, and more road traffic offending. So far further instances of inflicting physical violence is concerned, when he was 30 years old he was admonished (that is, his criminal record was marked with no separate penalty) for an assault causing injury, and as a 36 year old (in 2023), he was convicted of two charges of assault, committed whilst on bail for other criminal charges. One assault resulted in severe injury. He was put under social work supervision for 18 months, and was fitted with an electronic tag requiring him to remain at home for twelve hours each day for a period of six months.

"The offender has been sentenced to imprisonment once before, in 2012, to 60 days, for abusive or threatening behaviour as well as failing to allow police to test him for suspected drink-driving.

"He is being sentenced today for threatening behaviour and for an assault to severe injury.

"On 28 August 2025, in a public place, he brandished a knife towards an adversary, and lunged at him with a knife. The man ran away. The offender accepts this behaviour constitutes the crime of threatening or abusive behaviour and has pleaded guilty. His plea of not guilty to unlawful possession of a knife in a public place was accepted; he says the kitchen knife was given to him for legitimate purposes along with some other household items to take to his partner.

"On 14 September 2025, the offender was drinking throughout much of the day with his friend. Unprovoked, whilst at his friend’s home, he punched him once in the face, breaking multiple bones including his friend’s eye socket.

"The offender committed both offences whilst on bail, that is to say, whilst other criminal proceedings against him were ongoing.

"He was arrested and kept in custody for just over a week after the incident with the knife, before being released pending trial. He was arrested again following the assault on his friend and has been kept in custody since then. He has now been detained for over nine months. I need to take account of that remand period in deciding what the appropriate sentence is to impose. When a prison sentence is imposed on someone who has been detained on remand, this is normally done by backdating the sentence by the amount of time spent already in prison.

"According to the early release rules approved by the Scottish Parliament, if an offender is sentenced to less than four years imprisonment, and the sentence is not for domestic abuse, nor terrorism, nor sex offending, then he will be released after serving 30% of his sentence. Those early release rules mean that the offender has already served the equivalent of a prison sentence of more than 30 months.

"Because the offender has pleaded guilty, the law states that I should consider making an adjustment to any sentence, making it shorter or otherwise less severe, so that those who are guilty have an incentive to plead guilty, avoiding a trial, saving the resources of the court, prosecution and the police, as well as avoiding witnesses having to attend court.

"The sort of violence and threatening behaviour by this offender could justify a substantial prison sentence. In deciding what sentence to impose, I have reviewed the sorts of sentences that have been imposed by other judges in other cases. It is difficult to find exact comparisons. I shall give one fairly recent example of the sorts of sentence imposed. On 21 October 2025, Perry John Quantrell and John Anthony Quantrell were sentenced in the High Court for an assault they committed together on a man already badly injured, by kicking and stamping on him. This attack constituted an assault to severe injury, permanent disfigurement and danger of life. The judge sentenced each offender to 36 months’ imprisonment.

"That attack is not closely comparable to the violence and threatening behaviour I am considering in respect of this offender, but that sentencing decision perhaps gives some broad indication of the sort of sentences that might be imposed for serious violence.

"It illustrates that, if I was to impose a prison sentence, the longest sentence I might reasonably justify, to be within the range of typical sentences, might not result in much additional time in prison, given that the offender has already served the equivalent of a 30-month sentence.

"I can increase the sentence that is otherwise appropriate, where this will protect the public by physically incapacitating the offender. That is important here where the offender has acted in a violent impulsive manner on two separate occasions, within three weeks of each other, both against friend and enemy, and whilst he has other criminal proceedings outstanding. The social worker who assessed the offender understandably concluded he poses a high risk of re-offending. Still, though, the final sentence must be reasonably proportionate to the degree of wrongdoing and harm. There might also be better ways to address future risk.

"I do not think a sentence as long as 48 months could be justified, and any shorter sentence results in automatic release once 30% has been served. I could add a supervised release order placing restrictions on the offender after release, but the maximum that could last for would be 12 months.

"Another approach would be to take account of the time detained on remand as much or all of the punishment of the offence, to release the offender today rather than keep him in for a modest additional time, and to impose a non-custodial sentence where he can be kept under supervision for up to three years.

"The social worker who assessed the offender does not recommend supervision as he has been put under supervision repeatedly yet still offended. The social worker’s view is entitled to respect. But, having regard to the limited further time in detention that could be justified if I am to sentence this offender in a manner in line with how other cases of violence are dealt with, it is questionable whether the public is better protected by a custodial sentence. The social worker would support imposition of a supervised release order with a requirement to follow the social worker’s directions about taking up support concerned with substance abuse and mental health, so the social worker clearly thinks something might be gained by supervision and direction of the offender whilst he is at liberty. The offender’s lawyer has submitted that the court could impose a non-custodial sentence with “robust terms”, and if there were any difficulty with compliance, he could be returned to court.

"The social worker says the offender could be suitable to be placed on a curfew enforced using an electronic tag. The social worker assesses him as unsuitable for unpaid work, given what the offender has told him, but the offender is physically fit, he has done unpaid work in the past as a criminal sentence, and his compliance with a requirement to do unpaid work could be a test of his progress away from substance abuse.

"In my assessment, the protection of the public is best served in the longer term by the imposition of a non-custodial sentence. I shall impose a community payback order with a requirement to be under social work supervision for three years, with a requirement to follow the social worker’s directions about substance misuse and mental health. As some form of impediment to abusing alcohol and drugs, I will have an electronic tag placed on the offender, and this will remain in place for 12 months unless I later agree to that period being reduced. To aid with the rehabilitation of the offender, I will impose a modest requirement of unpaid work, of 50 hours, to be completed in six months. If the offender completes the unpaid work, complies with supervision, and demonstrates to his social worker that he is generally taking effective steps to reform so that he is less likely to offend in future (such as by tackling his substance abuse), the continuing need for the electronic tag can be reviewed, and if appropriate, removed before the 12 months are up. On the other hand, if the offender fails to comply with the order, then he can be required to return to court, arrested if need be, and potentially returned to prison.

"Had it not been for the offender’s guilty plea, the level of prison sentence that could be reasonably imposed would be such as to make that the appropriate disposal rather than a community payback order.

"Accordingly, the offender is sentenced to a community payback order, with a supervision period of three years, a conduct requirement to follow the social worker’s direction regarding treatment for substance abuse and mental illness, a restriction of movement requirement requiring the offender to remain at home from 7pm to 7am each day, for 12 months, and a requirement to complete 50 hours of unpaid work within 6 months."

8 June 2026