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 Albert Glass
Sep 4, 2026
Upon sentencing, Lord Matthews made the following remarks:
"You pleaded guilty, at a preliminary hearing, to a charge of assaulting a young man to his severe injury and the danger of his life on 7 March 2025.
"You were on bail at the time with a condition preventing you from contacting the complainer.
"That was in connection with an incident where you struck him on the face with a hockey stick and which resulted, on 8 October 2025, in the imposition of a Community Payback Order and a Compensation Order.
"That was one of your only two previous convictions, the other being an assault for which you were prosecuted on indictment in 1986 and which resulted in a Community Service Order.
"You are now 61. For much of your life you have been law-abiding but you are now in the High Court as a result of this incident, the details of which I was told about at the last hearing.
"I heard an agreed narrative. It is plain that you were minding your own business at home and were about to get into your car and drive away. The complainer saw you and ran towards you shouting, making threats and challenging you to fight, despite the fact that his mother was doing her best to stop him.
"When he approached, you drove the car towards him, striking him with it. You then reversed a short distance and drive forwards again, striking hm a second time and causing him to fall.
"CCTV footage shows that only very small distances and speeds were involved but nonetheless the complainer sustained bruising, swelling and some blistering over the front, and on the sides, of his right lower leg. X-rays confirmed that the attack had caused him to fracture 3 parts of the ankle joint.
"He was extremely intoxicated and unco-operative at the time and did not want the police involved. It seems that other people called them.
"In due course you found out that they were looking for you and handed yourself in.
"I have considered the Justice Social Work (JSWR) report and taken account of everything said on your behalf.
"The fact that the complainer did not wish the police involved is not itself mitigatory but it is in keeping with his actions, which clearly were the instigating factors in what went on that night.
"The Crown have accepted that you did not intend to murder the complainer but you have taken responsibility for what was in all the circumstances still a serious assault which in other circumstances might have proved fatal and which in the result caused serious ankle injuries.
"You attribute your actions to two minutes of madness as a result of a threat and the complainer’s actions, and that is probably fair comment, although the incident was much shorter than that, but you should have refrained from acting as you did.
"I have decided that a custodial sentence cannot be avoided. The JSWR refers to an extended sentence if I were imposing a long-term sentence or a supervised release order for a short-term sentence but that same report refers to you as presenting a low risk. The statutory test for neither is met.
"Had the matter gone to trial the sentence would have been one of imprisonment for 4 years and 2 months, the 2 months being attributable to the breach of bail. While it was not you who initiated the contact you should not have engaged with the complainer at all.
"Given the timing of your plea, which was first tendered to the Crown just under 17 months from your first appearance on petition, I will restrict the sentence to imprisonment for 40 months, to run from 29 July 2026, a week before I remanded you in custody, to reflect the week you spent on remand before being released on bail."
4 September 2026