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 Matthew Sylvestre
Jun 19, 2026
Upon sentencing, Lord Colbeck made the following remarks:
"On 22 May 2026 you were convicted by a jury of two contraventions of section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice & Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, both aggravated by you being on bail at the time and one also racially aggravated and aggravated by religious prejudice.
"The victims of those two offences were the Lord Advocate and the then First Minister’s wife.
"Additionally, you were convicted of assaulting a police officer, causing severe injury to him by doing so.
"In determining the headline sentence, I am first required to assess the seriousness of the present offences.
"The seriousness of an offence is determined by two things: the culpability of the offender and the harm caused, or which might have been caused, by the offence. As either or both culpability and harm increase, so may the seriousness of the offence.
"In relation to the two s.38 charges the degree of culpability is significant, particularly in the case of the two messages sent to the Lord Advocate which were sinister and impliedly threatened both her son and her sisters.
"In relation to the assault charge the jury clearly rejected your position that the injury caused was accidentally, whilst at the same time determining that the injury was severe but was not permanently impairing.
"Taken together the offences are serious ones.
"The impact of your offending in charges 4 and 5 is set out in the victim statements provided by your victims on those charges.
"Your criminal record is a significant aggravating factor in this case. You have a High Court conviction from 2004 in respect of a serious assault and firearms offences. You were sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.
"Whilst less serious – your sheriff court convictions from 2020 are of considerable concern in that they comprise a s.38 (involving the sending of abusive e-mail correspondence to high profile individuals) and an assault on a police officer. In each case you were on bail at the time of the offences.
"There is little if anything by way of mitigation.
"I have regard to all that is contained within the criminal justice social work report and to all that has been said on your behalf today by Mr McConnachie KC.
"You are 61 years of age. It is clear that you are an educated man, however, the manner in which you have chosen to engage with high profile public figures is simply unacceptable as, of course, is assaulting police officers in the course of their duties. Sending offensive messages whilst you have been drinking is not an excuse – it is an aggravation.
"The gravity of the charges you have been convicted of are such that there is no other method of dealing with each of you than by the imposition of a custodial sentence.
"The messages you sent to the then Lord Advocate amounted also to an attack on the administration of justice. Everyone who plays a part in the administration of justice must be protected from the type of behaviour you chose to engage in on this occasion.
"It is important that those who might be disposed to seek to undermine the fair and proper administration of justice by violent, threatening or disrespectful behaviour are left in no doubt that they will be severely punished when brought to justice.
"In respect of the three charges you were convicted of, I will impose a cumulo custodial term. Had the offences stood alone I would have imposed the following sentences:
Charge 3 [Criminal Justice & Licensing (Sc) Act 2010, s.38(1)]
"16 months’ imprisonment (of which 4 months would have been attributed to the bail aggravation, but no part is attributable to the racial or religious prejudice aggravations as they, in effect, were the essence offence and the gravity of those elements is marked by the length of the sentence imposed, excepting the part attributable to the bail aggravation);
Charge 4 [Assault to severe injury]
"8 months imprisonment (of which 2 months would have been attributed to the bail aggravation); and
Charge 5 [Criminal Justice & Licensing (Sc) Act 2010, s.38(1)]
"3 years’ imprisonment (of which 9 months would have been attributed to the bail aggravation).
"It is a fundamental principle of sentencing that sentences should be no more severe than is necessary to achieve the appropriate purposes of sentencing in each case. Ordering that the sentences I would have imposed run consecutively would result in a sentence far more severe than is necessary to achieve those purposes.
"I will accordingly impose a cumulative sentence of a lesser amount than the sum of the sentences indicated by me. That will be one of 3 years’ 4 months imprisonment.
"The sentence will be backdated to 18 March 2024, when you were first remanded in custody in relation to these matters.
SRO
"The CJSWR concludes that you present as a medium risk of re-offending.
"In my judgement, to protect the public from serious harm on your release, it is appropriate to impose on you a Supervised Release Order. Accordingly, on your release from custody, you will be under the supervision of the local authority for a period of 12 months.
"During that period you will report to the supervising officer allocated to supervise you in a manner and at intervals specified by him or her; you will keep your supervising officer informed of your current address and you will comply with any other requirement he or she may reasonably specify.
"If you breach the order, you may be brought back to court and returned to custody for all or any part of a period equal to that between the date of your first breach of the order and the date when your supervision would expire.
NHO
"I will make a NHO in terms of which you are prohibited, indefinitely, from approaching or from contacting in any way whatsoever, and from attempting to approach or contact, Nadia El-Nakla."
19 June 2026