SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing Judge Gallacher made the following remarks in court:

" Douglas Mills Senior and Douglas Mills Junior you were convicted after trial of the attempted murder of  Police Constable Mark Smith.  On 30 August 2024 he and a colleague were undertaking what they expected to be normal plain clothes duties in Hamilton when they came across a vehicle being driven by you Douglas Mills Junior and in which you Douglas Mills Senior were the front seat passenger. 

When your vehicle pulled off the road and stopped Constable Smith approached with the purpose of carrying out a search.  He and his colleague were aware of another individual having crossed the road towards your vehicle in possession of a quantity of cash and their inference was that a drug transaction was to take place. 

From their verdict it is clear that the jury accepted the version of events described by Constable Smith that he was clear in identifying himself as he approached the vehicle by announcing that audibly and by showing his police issue warrant card.  The other male person moved away and as Constable Smith arrived at the vehicle, he leant in to show his warrant card and again shouted his identity as a police officer.

It was clear from the evidence of Constable Smith and his colleague and from that given by you Douglas Mills Junior, that there had been some previous contact between you and  those police officers where they had carried out a search of your house some short time previously.

Constable Smith gave evidence to the effect that you, Douglas Mills Junior said something to indicate that you clearly recognised and acknowledged who the officer was.  At that point Constable Smith was pulled from his feet and into the vehicle.  The car moved off and accelerated rapidly.  Constable Smith was suspended from the vehicle as it drove a significant distance along the road and the speed of the vehicle reached something around 50 to 55mph.

At that point, and as the vehicle continued at that speed, Constable Smith was pushed on his body and thrown from the motor vehicle.

In the course of the trial the jury had the obligation to see video recorded images of that catastrophic event.  I suspect all who saw those images will always remember them.

In giving my instructions to the jury, I defined the aspects of the charge for them including the basic principle that the attack upon the victim must have been deliberate.  I set out the concept of attempted murder by explaining that it was necessary to consider what was involved with murder so that they could understand a charge involving an attempt at that.  The definition routinely given to juries is that those involved must have wickedly intended to kill the victim or shown a wicked recklessness as to whether a person would live or die.  It is hard to imagine a more eloquent manifestation of those possible intentions by what was seen in the video recording as Constable Smith was thrown from the vehicle and struck the ground repeatedly, being propelled over a considerable distance.  As was utterly inevitable, he sustained devastating and life changing injuries.

By enormous good fortune he survived the attack.  There was properly no challenge by either of you to the fact that he did sustain severe injuries causing permanent disfigurement. resulting in permanent impairment to various of his faculties and enduring impact on his life and there is no doubt that his life was put in significant danger.

I had the opportunity of watching and listening to Constable Smith as he gave his evidence and he is to be commended for the strength of character which allowed him to do that.  I have also had the opportunity of considering a lengthy statement from him describing the impact upon him as a victim.  It is clear that as a consequence of his injuries his life is significantly diminished.  His hearing is impacted by tinnitus, and his sense of smell has been diminished.  He has physical injuries which still require ongoing treatment and impact on his mobility.  He is marked and scarred in a variety of ways and a variety of places.  He describes his life as becoming a battle impacting across every aspect of his personal and family life.  It is clear that he recognises that it is likely that his chosen career will not reach the development that he hoped he could bring to it.  Currently his anxiety is to what the future may bring.  For my part I earnestly hope that he may find an avenue in which he can flourish once more with his family and contribute again to the community as he would wish to do so.

Daily, police officers carry out duties which put them in situations where they are at risk.  The community in general relies upon police officers doing that.

In the event that a police officer, in carrying out such duties, is the subject of such an outrageously wicked attack as you perpetrated upon him, it falls to the courts to show to you, as individuals who carried out the attack, and others who might contemplate behaving in such a way, and to the community in general, that such behaviour will not be tolerated and will result in significant penalties.

I take account Douglas Mills Senior that you have a very limited criminal history albeit that you appeared before a jury some years ago involving public disorder and violence.  I take account of what was said about your personal circumstances and of your family and the context in which you will serve and sentence in prison and the impact of that upon you. In your case Douglas Mills Junior, you have appeared in court on a slightly larger number of occasions but not at solemn level.  It is however alarming to notice that you were convicted of dangerous driving in 2015.  You were convicted of driving whilst disqualified in 2019.  You were convicted of further road traffic offences in 2024 and I have clarification from the Crown in relation to these offences that it is apparent that you were driving in dangerously again in 2023 and sentenced for that in 2024 and failing to provide a specimen for analysis for cannabis when you were driving on 2 August 2024 a matter of weeks advance of the driving seen by the jury in this case on 30 August 2024.

In determining the sentence that I must impose upon you it is clear, as I have made plain, that you were engaged in a murderous attack which is always regarded as a very serious matter.  That the attack involved a police officer in the course of his duties increases the gravity and your culpability.  In assessing the level of harm I take account that what happened here resulted in +permanent irreversible injury which has a substantial long‑term effect on the PC Smith’s ability to carry out normal day‑to‑day activities and his ability to work. 

There was no suggestion that was advanced by the advocate depute that this was pre-planned or determined attack for the events as they unfolded on 30 August.  I accept that your conviction Douglas Mills Senior for violence was many years ago and that you Douglas Mills Junior have no previous convictions involving violence.  I have regard to everything said in mitigation on behalf of each of you. I note the analysis for you Douglas Mills  Jnr that you have manifested remorse for the consequences of your actions and that there is hope for rehabilitation. That aside I find very little which would allow me to mitigate the sentence that is to be imposed upon you.

The case was presented and determined by the jury to involve a concerted and joint attack.  The advocate depute in her address to the jury suggested that you were each doing separate things and that may be that was the correct approach.  In these circumstances I see no basis in which I could distinguish a penalty imposed on each of you.  In your case Douglas Mills Junior, you have been in custody since 2024, but it appears that you were serving some sentence which was imposed in relation to another road traffic conviction to which I have made reference on an earlier occasion.  In these circumstances the sentence imposed upon you will be backdated to 7 November 2024.  In your case Douglas Mills Senior, after remand to allow a possible appeal, you were released on bail subject to electronic monitoring for  a total of 706 days until the verdict of the jury on 13 August.  In your case the sentence will be backdated to 11 August 2026, but I direct that 353 days should be treated as a period spent in custody. In respect of each of you the sentence I impose upon you is 17 years imprisonment.