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 Tyler Sivier and MM
Sep 15, 2026
Upon sentencing, Lord Braid made the following remarks:
"Tyler Sivier, you pled guilty to assault to severe injury by striking the complainer with a knife to his severe injury, permanent disfigurement and to the danger of his life. The assault happened in the course of an altercation which you had with the complainer which led to a physical fight in the course of which he was struck in the abdomen with a knife. By your plea of guilty, you accept criminal responsibility for that assault, whether or not you were the person who actually inflicted the blow. The altercation arose out of an assault carried out minutes earlier by you, [MM], when you struck the complainer on the head with a metal tray, that assault seemingly arising out of an incident involving a car in the previous month. That assault, understandably annoyed the complainer who I accept, followed your group challenging you to a fight; a challenge which, on the evidence led at trial, only Mr Sivier took up.
"As far as sentence is concerned, I will deal first with you [MM]. The assault committed by you did not cause any injury and the jury found that you do not bear any criminal responsibility for the assault with a knife a short time later. I have had careful regard to the Justice Social Work report which shows that you pose a clear risk of further offending unless you take steps to address your behaviour. I do agree with the recommendation of the author of the report that a supervision requirement as part of a community payback order (CPO) is the most appropriate way of dealing with you. However, I disagree that a six month order is sufficient. I will impose a CPO containing a supervision requirement lasting for a period of 12 months. During that period you must comply with the instructions of the social worker supervising you, in other words, do what he or she tells you. In particular, you must go to all appointments on time and cooperate with the social worker when you are there. If you do not comply with the order then you may be returned to court and another sentence may be passed, which could include custody.
"Tyler Sivier, you have pled guilty to committing a most serious assault. I accept that the complainer appears to have been a willing participant in the initial fight, but that is no excuse for the use of a knife. The assault is made worse by the fact that it endangered the complainer’s life. Had he not undergone emergency surgery, he may well have died. In his Victim Statement, he explains how the assault has had a lasting psychological impact on him. While I have had careful regard to the Justice Social Work prepared in your case, and to what has been said on your behalf in mitigation, despite the recommendation in the report, the gravity of the offence is such that here is no alternative to a custodial sentence in your case. The sentencing objectives are retribution; protection of the public and rehabilitation. I must also have regard to the Scottish Sentencing Guideline on Sentencing Young People. Taking everything into account, in particular that there is a clear need for work to be done with you to stop you from reoffending, and that there may be some hope that that will be successful, along with the fact that you are likely to receive a consecutive sentence for unrelated offending later today, I have come to the view that the appropriate headline sentences is one of four years detention. A considerably longer sentence would have been appropriate had you been an adult. You are entitled to some discount for your guilty plea, although that did come at a late stage. I will therefore impose a sentence of 3 years and 9 months detention backdated to 27 July 2026. I will also impose a supervised release order for a period of 12 months following your release. During that period you will be under the supervision of a social worker and you must comply with his or her directions. If you do not comply with that, you too may be returned to court and if a breach of that order is proved you may be returned to custody."
15 September 2026