SENTENCING STATEMENTS

Upon sentencing, Judge O'Grady made the following remarks:

"APPROACH

In any given case, when approaching sentence there are many and various factors the court is bound to take into account. Some are constant. Others will vary from case to case. In some cases the elements to be considered will be few and simple. In other cases they will be many and complex.

There is no doubt that this case falls into the latter category.

Put broadly, the court requires to consider –

1. The nature and circumstances of the offences
2. The harm flowing from those offences, to both the complainers and society
3. The current and previous circumstances of the offender
4. His previous criminal record
5. The punishment which is appropriate in the light of the above factors
6. What scope there may be for reforming the offender
7. What future risk he may represent
8. What disposal or combination of disposals will best protect the public from future harm at his hands.

The weight to be given to these factors again will vary from case to case. But in this case it is glaringly apparent that featuring prominently will be the future protection of the public.

So let me turn to these various aspects, not necessarily in that order.

CRIMINAL RECORD

There is before me a schedule of previous convictions. It is concerning in terms of both quantity and quality.

In the 3 years before committing the present offences, the accused had 18 court appearances. 14 related to separate complaints or indictments. The convictions cover 38 separate charges. 8 involve use of or possession of a weapon. The tally is 1 hammer, 1 bottle, 1 sharp instrument and 5 knives. 4 relate to assault to injury and 1 to assault to severe injury and danger of life. He has breached 22 bail orders and 4 community payback orders.

These bald statistics are troubling enough. But to be considered along with them is the narrative account of each offence set out in paragraph 15 of the Risk Assessment Report. I do not rehearse these narratives in detail here. Inter alia, we see that at the age of 17 he strangled a member of staff at a young persons' secure unit. He did so with such force that the member of staff was lifted off his feet and briefly lost consciousness. On 7 occasions when stealing from shops he threatened, abused or assaulted staff members. On one occasion he brandished a hammer and withdrew a black handle from his pocket plausibly claiming he also had a knife. On another occasion while stealing he brandished a knife and lunged at a member of staff. During another theft he produced a screwdriver or knife and threatened a security guard. Again, in another incident he was seen to be in possession of a hammer and proceeded to spit at a staff member, punch him in the testicles and thereafter threaten to return and stab him.

This is not an exhaustive account but it is enough to provide a flavour of his behaviour in the period up to the present offences and presents a clear picture of a young man with no boundaries who is out of control and has ready resort to the use of potentially lethal and significant violence.

This is properly part of the background against which the present offences must be seen and weighed.

THE PRESENT OFFENCES

I turn now to the three offences on the instant indictment to which the accused has pled guilty.

These have already been the subject of a detailed agreed narration; again I do not rehearse that but I require to broadly refer to certain aspect which necessarily bear upon disposal.

I will deal with them in ascending order of seriousness.

Charge 1.

The complainer Steven Logan, in the early hours of a Sunday morning, was seated in a doorway on South Bridge. He was approached by the accused whom he may or may not have known. There was a brief argument between them, the cause of which is unclear. At that point, unprovoked, the accused produced a knife, striking Steven Logan twice to his right hand. The accused then turned away and walked back towards the city centre. Mr Logan was left bleeding profusely. Police and ambulance services were summoned and he was hospitalised. He was found to have two incised wounds on his fingers and a laceration. There is no further information of the effects on Mr Logan. I pause to observe that the accused has given an account of this incident to the Assessor which flies in the face of the agreed narrative and, in particular, that the attack was unprovoked; I therefore disregard the accused's account in that respect.

Charge 3.

In the afternoon of the day in question, the complainer Mr El Maaroufi was at the locus waiting for a friend. The accused was known to him; they had met briefly once four years before. He was approached by the accused, conversed briefly with him and walked away. The accused, without warning produced a metal hammer, striking the complainer on the left side of his head. The complainer slumped to the ground semi-conscious, unable to move or speak. He was left bleeding from the nose and mouth and his speech was slurred. He had a seizure at the scene and lost consciousness. On examination at hospital, putting it broadly, he was found to have a fractured skull and bleeding to the brain. He had another seizure in hospital. His life was in danger. He underwent invasive and significant surgery which involved incision to the skull and reconstruction using titanium plated. He subsequently spent time in a neurosurgery ward.

The consequences for Mr El Maaroufi have been catastrophic. Since the attack he has been depressed, unable to concentrate and has been constantly fearful. He socialises rarely and describes himself as 'paranoid' in public. The incident has disrupted his relationships with friends and family and has caused him to postpone his wedding. He feels constantly confused and lost.

Charge 2.

The horrific details of this charge have already been narrated. I do not propose to repeat them. But I will repeat this; they are the stuff of nightmares for every woman, every young girl and every parent who waits at home for their child to return safely. The word 'predatory' is perhaps overused in these courts but it is an inescapable adjective when considering this truly bestial crime. In many years on this bench I have rarely come across a more chilling scenario. You effectively left your lair and went out hunting for a vulnerable victim and, finding one, stalked her, seized her at knifepoint, took her to a dingy basement and hideously raped her. I cannot begin to imagine the horror and fear which gripped her. I am without doubt that even as you dragged her along the street at knife-point she must have known what was about to befall her. As I have already observed, mercifully, she did in the end return to her parents but I have no doubt she returned as a child dreadfully damaged, as a child and a woman who will forever walk in the shadow of what you did to her.

These are dreadful crimes. And it is to be noted that charge 1 and charge 2 occurred within hours of each other while all three were committed in the space of four days.

These offences are horrific in themselves but in considering them I am bound to set them in the context of the recent, relevant and appalling criminal record which you had previously acquired. In terms of time and in some crucial features, they run seamlessly on from that previous behaviour and can be viewed as a perhaps inevitable and predictable escalation.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCUSED

A further element which I am bound to consider in sentence is the personal history and present circumstances of the accused. I need to place this in context. In what I am about to say I do not seek to portray the perpetrator as the victim. You are not a victim in these proceedings. You have full capacity; you understand right from wrong and you are equally fully responsible in law for what you have done.

But as a matter of law, I am bound to have regard to your personal history and matters in that history which may have contributed to the paths you have chosen. They are simply facts which I have to take into account.

The first is your age. You are at present only approaching 22 years of age. At the time of the present offences you were 20. And at the time of your previous offending you were younger still.

The courts recognise that offenders of that age lack the maturity of older men and may be more inclined to be impulsive and lacking in the judgement that comes with age. We are directed to take this into account in terms of both punishment and the nature and purpose of disposal. And I do that in your case.

I also am obliged to have regard to previous adverse life experience and how that might bear upon culpability, maturity and judgement.

There is contained in the Risk Assessment a detailed account of your personal history. And I concede that it makes grim reading. Literally from birth, you have encountered very significant and adverse personal and social circumstances, many of which cannot be held to be your fault. You have been singularly unlucky in your upbringing, with little stability and limited guidance. It is unsurprising that you began exhibiting challenging behaviour at an early age and that your sense of self and of others was distorted. I also am bound to take this into account and I do. And I also understand that to these problems must be added various functional problems which are referred to in the psychological aspect of the Risk Assessment. I turn to that now.

RISK FACTORS

The Risk Assessment is full, thoughtful and helpful. It is also necessarily lengthy and so what I refer to now needs to be placed in the context of the whole Report.

I began by dealing with the various elements which may be present in the sentencing balance. The importance of any one of these will of course vary from case to case. But in some cases, the element of future risk will be one of, if not one of the most, prominent considerations. And for reasons which will be clear that is so in your case. It is obvious from the features I have identified in relation to both the current charges and your previous offending why I considered it necessary to explore the appropriateness or otherwise of an Order for Lifelong Restriction.

The Risk Assessment - quite properly - includes a detailed and exhaustive examination of aspects of your presentation, psychological history, attitude and behaviour. And amidst all of the findings one thing is clear overall. There are identified numerous factors which bear upon your future risk and indeed which compound and react with each other to shape and create that risk.

You are found, presently and historically, to have problems with;

1. violence
2. anti-social behaviour
3. relationships
4. employment
5. substance misuse
6. mental disorder
7. traumatic experiences
8. treatment and supervision response
9. violent attitudes
10. problems with personality disorder.

In summary the Report tells me that-

'Mr Strachan has a history of general offending and violent behaviour. His relationship with anti-social peers and the violence he has been exposed to through these associations appear to have compounded existing trauma and contributed to an escalating pattern of violent behaviour........His underlying difficulties with impulse control also increase his risk of aggressive behaviour, aggravated by his chronic substance abuse. Finally, his issues responding to and engaging with supervision, particularly in the period leading up to his index offending meant he did not make full use of support that could have aided him in managing his risk'.

In relation to the most serious of the index offences, the crime of rape it is said-

'The nature of his index offence indicates that Mr Strachan most likely had thoughts of enacting sexual violence at some point in the lead up to the offence. [this, with respect seems a statement of the obvious given the circumstances]. The lack of pattern of such offending or any known previous concerns about his sexual behaviour, alongside his self-report, makes it difficult to determine the extent or nature of any deviant thoughts/fantasies'.

I observe in passing and, with respect, that even though this may be the accused's first sexual offence and there is no pattern, there is surely something to be drawn from the horrific and extreme nature of the crime; if a man's first crime of violence is a brutal murder it seems reasonable to infer that he has violent propensities.

The Report at section 20 goes on to deal with Risk Scenarios. Again I do not rehearse them but it can be seen that they hypothesise certain scenarios, both in custody and in the community, which all too plausibly would be likely to result in serious violent and/or sexual reoffending.

The Assessor considers that there is evidence of some protective factors, principally his apparent motivation for treatment. However, given his past behaviour and failure to accept assistance or comply with authority or supervision throughout his life, this must be a slender hope. Any future progress apparently relies on the motivation of the accused to change. I regret that I can see little evidence in the Report that there is anything beyond the accused's own assertions on which to base that prospect.

With respect, I struggle with some of the Assessor's conclusions on the important and perhaps determinative issue on whether behaviours are entrenched or not. By way of example, I would point to the following.

As we know, and as the Assessor knows, this accused has on 8 occasions had possession of or used a variety of potentially deadly weapons; he has 4 previous convictions for assault to injury; he has one conviction for assault to severe injury and danger of life; he has inter alia strangled a member of staff in a secure unit to the point of unconsciousness; the index offences are an unprovoked knife attack on a virtual stranger to his severe injury; another unprovoked brutal attack with a hammer on another virtual stranger to his severe injury, permanent impairment, permanent disfigurement and danger of life; and the horrific stalking, abduction and rape of a 15 year old stranger, while using a knife - and to quote the Assessor –

'There are other areas of concern including his propensity for violent ideation however these do NOT appear to be entrenched.'

In so far as sentencing in any case is intended to protect the public and/or reduce an offender's propensity for future harm, there is necessarily uncertainty about the outcome.

However - and again I mean no criticism - such is the number, complexity and interaction of the factors around this accused's offending that his future behaviour and compliance, and thereby future risk, is fraught with uncertainty, unusually and exceptionally so. And, in my judgement, with exceptional uncertainty comes exceptional risk.

If a determinate sentence were imposed in this case, even with an extended sentence, the accused would emerge from custody - and in due course licence - still a young man. It seems wholly improbable that all the major issues identified in this Report - lifelong and deep rooted as they are - would be or could be addressed to the extent that the risk of serious harm he represents would have been extinguished or at least not require the closest supervision.

CONCLUSION

By reference to Section 210C (3) of the 1995 Act, the Assessor's opinion as to whether the risk mentioned in the Act, that is, the risk that the accused being at liberty presents to the safety of the public at large, having regard to such standards and guidelines as are issued by the Risk Management Authority in that regard is high, medium or low is that the accused presents a moderate risk of seriously harmful violence.

The Assessor does however concede that the nature, seriousness and pattern of his violence to date indicates that he has a propensity to seriously endanger the physical and psychological wellbeing of the public at large.

I have had careful regard to what is a full and careful Report and I have carefully considered its conclusions and recommendations. While I am bound to have regard to the Report, I am not bound by its conclusions and recommendations. The decision on disposal is ultimately a matter for my discretion and judgement. In exercising those I am satisfied that the statutory test is met for imposition of an Order for Lifelong Restriction. I am very conscious of the age of the accused and that such an order in relation to one so young is exceptional, but for the reasons I have set out at length, I consider it to be the correct disposal for both society and him.

EXPLANATION

The sentence I am about to impose constitutes a sentence of imprisonment for an indeterminate period. It means you could only be released from prison in the event that the parole board could be satisfied that your release would not endanger public safety.

Such release would require to be on particularly strict licence conditions, close supervision and continuing risk management.

The law requires me to set out a minimum term of imprisonment - referred to as the punishment part - of your sentence. This is the minimum period you must serve before the Parole Board can even consider your case.

I wish to stress that this is the minimum period and it should not be thought by you or the public that it in any sense reflects my view of when you should be released.

Under the law passed by Parliament and by which I am bound, when and indeed whether you are released is a matter for the Parole Board.

For my own part, having regard to all the matters I have canvassed today, I consider that in view of the level of risk you present to the public, you are likely to remain in prison for many years, if indeed you are ever released.

CALCULATION

In the present case, had I been imposing a determinate sentence after trial, it would have been an extended sentence.

In relation to the first indictment I would have considered the following sentences as merited -

Charge 1..........2 years

Charge 2..........10 years

Charge 3..........4 years

Second indictment.......1 year

That however would have resulted in a total sentence of some 17 years which, having regard to the age of the accused and considerations of totality I would have reduced and reflected in a cumulative sentence of 13 years.

I would further have imposed an extended sentence of 8 years; that extended period would be the element for protection of the public and accordingly falls to be disregarded in this calculation.

The headline period of 13 years falls to be further reduced to reflect the accused's pleas of guilty. I therefore reduce the headline sentence to 10 years.

In reaching a final determination of the punishment part I then have to have to the early release rules; this means that the period of 10 years follows to be reduced by 50% to 5 years.

This calculation which I am obliged to undertake is - with good reason - much misunderstood by complainers and members of the public.

I wish to stress that this punishment part of 5 years is the bare minimum that you must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

And in that regard, I would remind you of my previous observations.

COMPLAINERS

It is often said in these courts – because it is always true – that no sentence I can impose can turn back the clock or erase memories and pain. But it is to be hoped that in time the complainers will recover from the wounds to their bodies and minds. In particular, it is to be hoped that the young complainer in charge 3 can, with the support and love of her family, find a way to move on. Given the courage and resilience which she has already shown I am confident that she will not allow her ordeal to define her life and will grow into a strong and happy woman."

27 July 2026