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 Edward Parsons

Aug 28, 2026

At the High Court in Glasgow, Judge T Kelly imprisoned Edward Parsons for 64 months. Parsons had admitted causing the death of Scott Gilles by dangerous driving. The offender has been disqualified from driving for 12 years and 9 months.

On sentencing, Judge Kelly made the following comments in court:

"Mr Parsons you pled guilty on 4 August 2026 to causing the death of Scott Gilles while driving dangerously on 9 June 2023, in contravention of section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. There were certain deletions made from charge 1.

You pled guilty to charge 2, that is driving with over two and a half times the limit of chemical derivative of cannabis in your blood.

Circumstances of the offence

The court heard a detailed narrative with sight of pictures and a video of what took place on 9 June 2023. In short, the road where this incident occurred was a long, straight section of road with excellent views for you of the road ahead. The weather was sunny and dry. Visibility was good.

Conditions were as near perfect for cycling that day, and for observing other road users.

Mr Gilles set out on the morning of 9 June 2023 from his home on his cycle. He was appropriately attired. Around 30 minutes later he was struck by the van driven by you. The effect of that collision was catastrophic. Scott Gilles was thrown from his bike onto the front bonnet, windscreen and roof of your van. He was fatally injured. Emergency services attended to try to save his life. Due to the injuries that he suffered as a result of the collision he was formally pronounced dead at the scene some 36 minutes or so after the collision.

The court observed pictures of the locus giving an overview of the road at the point of impact and the ensuing damage to the road, van and bike.

Video footage was captured from Mr Gillies’ bicycle. A number of motorists were able to carefully negotiate round Mr Gilles on the road. You then entered the carriageway. For a period of what is estimated to be around 19 seconds you have an unobstructed view of Mr Gilles. You travelled along that road and struck the back of his cycle.

You have accepted in your plea of guilty that you failed to maintain proper observations on the road.

You failed to brake.

You failed to carry out an overtaking manoeuvre when it was safe to do so.

Mr Gilles was clearly observable. There was no obstruction between you and him. You travelled towards him and struck him.

The precise reason behind that collision is unexplained. Having regard to what the court has observed about the conditions, the road and your approach, that remains the case.

In arriving at an appropriate sentence, the court is enjoined in terms of the applicable sentencing guideline from the Scottish Sentencing Council to come to a fair and proportionate sentence commensurate with the principles and purposes of sentencing. The court is assisted in this regard by the directly applicable sentencing guideline from the Scottish Sentencing Council on causing death by dangerous driving.

The court is enjoined to assess the seriousness of this offence with reference to both your culpability or blameworthiness and the harm you have caused.

Harm

As the guideline recognises, the level of harm in a case such as this has already been fixed in the statutory offence to which you have pled guilty. The loss of life is of the utmost gravity.

Victim Impact

I have read and considered each of the victim impact statements lodged with the court. I am grateful to those who have taken the time and care to frame these statements which I have found to be of assistance. It must have been an upsetting task to have to outline to the court the consequences of the loss of a partner, father and brother.

Mr Andrew Gilles, son of the deceased, speaks eloquently of how he will miss his father, of how he received the news and the effect of his father’s passing. Andrew has had his own difficulties to deal with, and the absence of his father’s support is keenly felt by him. He speaks of his father’s support being “an escape” for him.

As Andrew puts it:

“He should not have died that day … my dad was one in a million and I don’t know if I will ever come to terms with him missing out on the milestones in my life and my sister’s life”.

Louise Gilles, Scott Gilles’ daughter, speaks movingly of receiving the tragic news of her father’s death and suffering already the gap in her life as a result of him not being there. For Louise, the way that her father died was “both shocking and devastating”. She too talks of her father missing out on birthdays, Christmases, grandchildren.

Yvonne McIntyre, Scott Gilles’ partner, speaks of the devastation caused by his death. She talks of it being “a pain that never fades”. She describes the plans for the future being taken from her. Getting through day-to-day life is for her isolating and exhausting. She is anxious that you understand what has been destroyed in the taking of Scott’s life. She says that there are no words to describe the hole that has been left in her life. She spends each day trying to cope with a future that she did not choose.

Mr Gilles’ brother and sister record their loss. Ian had to tell his family of the news, and he talks of the family being affected enormously. He undergoes therapy to try to regulate his emotions in the wake of his loss.

Linda Wilkie talks of the close relationship she had with her brother. They holidayed together. She has been extremely affected by Scott’sdeath. She needed him there to support her. She is angry that this has happened.

It is important that you appreciate the devastation caused by what happened that day. The description of harm being the death of one individual does not fully and properly describe the consequences of your conduct, which, as these vivid statements attest, rippled out across Mr Gilles’ extended family from and after that fateful day.

Culpability

In assessing the seriousness for offences of this type, the court looks to the culpability of the offender.

The court is assisted in the guideline ascribing different levels of seriousness. Looking to assess gravity the court is directed to consider: (1) the nature or manner of driving; (2) the capacity of the driver and (3) other circumstances.

Driving

I consider that the manner of your driving created a very significant risk of danger to Mr Gilles. It is not established that you were driving at an excessive speed. However, your driving that day on a clear, unobstructed road for a significant period of time having regard to your failure in observations, braking and overtaking gave rise to a very significant risk.

Capacity

In relation to your capacity it has been deleted from charge 1 that you drove whilst impaired by the prior ingestion of cannabis.

You appear to have set off after ingesting medication and having suffered some side effects from that before embarking upon your journey.

Other

In light of the reported state of your vehicle there is nothing in that which contributed to the accident and there was nothing that happened that day that put you on notice about the road, your vehicle or the like.

Mitigation

I have considered all that has been said by Mr Ross KC on your behalf. I have considered carefully your personal circumstances.

You cooperated with police officers. You have expressed remorse.

In light of the fact that you are unable to assist with any meaningful explanation as to how this accident occurred, there is nothing in the circumstances of the offence that affords any substantive mitigation.

Aggravations

There are a number of aggravations applicable and relevant to sentencing for this offence.

Driving whilst affected by medication – though I have already taken account of this fact when assessing seriousness.

Previous convictions

You have a schedule of previous convictions. In 2010 you were imprisoned for a contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There are six separate contraventions of the road traffic legislation that cover driving without insurance, speeding and the like.

Vulnerability

I note as an aggravating feature Mr Gillies’ vulnerability as a cyclist. Though a careful and safety conscious bike rider, at the time of the collision he was by virtue of his position on the bike completely unprotected from what you did.

Charge 2

I regard as an aggravation – though have taken care not to double count its effect - the fact that whilst driving dangerously and causing Mr Gillies death you were committing another driving offence – that which you have pled guilty to in charge 2 - of driving whilst having ingested cannabis. The precise form of that drug and the circumstances in which you came to take it are more fully described in the report – there appears to have been an element of self medicating with cannabis cookies.

Sentence

Coming then to the sentence which it falls to the court to impose - this is not a disposal which seeks to in any sense reflect the death of Mr Gillies and all that has been lost by this devastating, tragic collision. It is unlikely that this process and this sentence will provide solace to those so deeply affected by his death.

I note that you cooperated with police officers, and that you have expressed remorse but taking into account the quality of your driving in light of the near perfect road conditions, and in the absence of any explanation, this falls to be regarded at a level of seriousness at level B with a range of 4 – 7 years’ custody.

The court requires to punish you for your driving and its consequences; it expresses revulsion for what occurred and seeks to, in imposing a significant custodial sentence, deter others from behaving in a like manner.

In all the circumstances I consider this falls to be regarded at the upper level of the applicable guidelines. I will impose a headline or starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment but will modify that to reflect the plea of guilty just shortly before the trial was due to commence to one of 64 months’ imprisonment backdated to run from 4 August 2026.

On charge 2 there will be a concurrent sentence of 6 months imprisonment, and your license will be endorsed.

You will be disqualified for a period of 10 years to which will require to be added a period which represents the period you will spend in custody – the total period of disqualification will therefore be 12 years 9 months.

You will be ordered to resit the extended test of competence to drive."

28 August 2026