SENTENCING STATEMENTS

Upon sentencing, Judge Collins KC made the following remarks:

"On 22 January 2026, on the third day of a trial diet, the accused pled guilty to a total of fourteen charges, being seven charges of rape, one charge of attempted rape, three charges of assault to injury or severe injury, two contraventions of section 1 DASA 2018 and one of section 39 CJLSA 2010. These offences were all committed between 2020 and 2024 against three former partners.

Collectively the offences constitute an appalling and protracted catalogue of sexual and physical violence and domestic abuse perpetrated by the accused.   

Victim impact statements have been produced from all three complainers. It is clear that they have suffered significant physical and mental harm as a result of the accused’s behaviour towards them.

The accused has a long history of offending, including in ways analogous to some of the present charges. Between 2010 and 2023 he accrued 26 convictions at sheriff court level. These included 13 crimes of violence, some of which involved the use of weapons, and 6 of which were domestically aggravated. The accused also has 11 convictions for breaching court orders, albeit that the last of these was in 2015. The accused’s offending was dealt with by fines, community sentences, and short periods of detention or imprisonment. His engagement with community sentences showed poor engagement on each occasion.

It is an unusual feature of this case that the accused pled guilty to all the charges for which he now falls to be sentenced. However it is apparent from the Criminal Justice Social Work Report (CJSWR) that his acceptance of responsibility for these offences is limited. Some he admitted, some he claimed to have no memory of, and some he continued to deny notwithstanding his guilty plea. Overall, as the social worker noted, he took very little responsibility for the offences, blaming either the complainers for what happened or his own state of intoxication at the time.   

Unsurprisingly, in the circumstances, the accused was assessed by the criminal justice social worker as being at high risk of causing serious harm to any future sexual partner, with his behaviour being likely to involve both serious physical and sexual abuse. A deferral for a risk assessment report was therefore suggested. 

The nature and circumstances of the offences were such that it appeared that the accused had a propensity to commit sexual and violent offences, and that the risk criteria in section 210E CPSA 1995 may be met. Accordingly I was required to make a risk assessment order under section 210B and so to obtain a risk assessment report under section 210C. 

Such a report, dated 6 August 2026, has been produced. No objection to its terms has been received from the accused pursuant to section 210C(7) and rule 19C(3) of the Act of Adjournal. So the question is whether, having regard to report and all the other available information, the risk criteria are met.    

The risk criteria are in section 210E. They are that the nature of, or the circumstances of commission of, the offences of which the accused has been convicted, either in themselves or as part of a pattern of behaviour, are such as to demonstrate that there is a likelihood that he, if at liberty, will seriously endanger the lives or physical or psychological well being of members of the public at large.

If these criteria are met, the court must make an order for lifelong restriction under section 210F. In doing so it must follow the process set out by the Appeal Court in Ferguson & Others v HMA 2014 SLT 431. 

In a detailed and careful report the assessor demonstrates full awareness that the accused has shown continued, regular and persistent use of sexual violence towards all three complainers in the present case. She acknowledges that he is unpredictable and impulsive with poor anger control. She considers that his global level of personality functioning sits within the severe range, giving significant cause for concern as regards his propensity for severe and enduring harmful violence. She is of the opinion that future management of the accused requires to be intensive, robust and with high levels of restriction and monitoring of his behaviour over an exceptionally long-term period, without which he is likely to continue to act in a violent and sexually violent manner that is likely to cause severe harm to victims. 

However ultimately the assessor concludes that the accused presents a medium rather than a high risk in terms of section 210C(3), and that measures short of lifelong restriction are possible in his case if he is given a very lengthy custodial sentence and a similarly lengthy extension period.

That conclusion begs the question of how long the custodial sentence and extension period should be if an Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR) were not to be imposed. 

In considering this I have had regard to the Scottish Sentencing Council Rape Guideline, and also the more general guideline on the Principles and Purposes of Sentencing. Insofar as the latter is concerned, the purposes of sentencing in the accused’s case are punishment, protection of the public - and in particular, women - an expression of society’s disapproval of the accused’s appalling behaviour towards women, and rehabilitation.

Considering first the rape charges, assessing the levels of culpability and harm in relation to each, and taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors, I consider that the appropriate custodial sentences would be as follows:

• 6 years imprisonment in respect of each of charges 2 and 10
• 7 years imprisonment in respect of each of charges 7, 8 and 15, and
• 8 years imprisonment in respect of each of charges 9 and 14.
  

In relation to charge 11, the single charge of attempted rape, the sentence would have been one of 3 years imprisonment.

In relation to the physical assault charges, the sentences would have been as follows:

• 3 years imprisonment in respect of charge 1
• 1 year imprisonment in respect of charge 3 and
• 2 years imprisonment in respect of charge 4.
  

And in relation to the domestic abuse charges, the sentences would have been as follows:

• 4 years imprisonment in cumulo, in respect of charges 5 and 6, and
• 3 years imprisonment, in respect of charge 13.
  

Were these sentences to be imposed so as run consecutively to each other, the total period of imprisonment would be one of 65 years imprisonment, which would clearly be excessive, disproportionate, and unnecessary to achieve the sentencing aims which I have identified.  

In my view the appropriate cumulo custodial sentences would be as follows:

• 18 years imprisonment in respect of the rape and attempted rape charges 2, 7 to 11, 14 and 15
• 4 and a half years in respect of the physical assault charges 1, 3 and 4, and
• 7 years in respect of charges 5, 6 and 13.
  

The sentence in respect of charges 1, 3, 4 and that in respect of charges 5, 6 and 13 would run concurrently with the sentence on charges 2, 7 to 11, 14 and 15.  Accordingly the total period of imprisonment would be one of 18 years.

I have however not forgotten that the accused pled guilty, and he is entitled to some credit for that. His plea was negotiated and recorded on day 3 of the trial, after the first complainer had given her evidence in chief. He did at least spare the first complainer from cross examination, and the other two complainers from the need to give any evidence. But necessarily the utilitarian value of the plea is relatively small. In my view the accused is entitled to a discount of one year, thus reducing the period of imprisonment to one of 17 years.

However there can be no doubt that having regard to the nature of the accused’s offending towards women, and the fact that he has been convicted both of sexual and violent offences, and in light of his record, that the ordinary conditions of release would be insufficient to protect the public – and in particular any future domestic or sexual partners - from serious harm from him. The statutory conditions for the making of an extended sentence under section 210A CPSA are therefore satisfied. And in my view the appropriate period of the extended licence would be one of 8 years.

Accordingly the sentence which would fall to be imposed if the accused was not made subject to an OLR would be an extended sentence, comprising a custodial element of 17 years and an extended licence period of 8 years.  During the licence period the conditions of licence would be set by the Scottish Ministers, and breach of any of those conditions would make the accused liable to be recalled to serve out the whole of the remainder of the sentence in custody.  

In my view the sentence described would involve both a very lengthy custodial period and a very lengthy extension period. Together they would permit the intensive, robust, restriction and monitoring of the accused’s behaviour over an exceptionally long-term period which the risk assessor had in mind, and which in her view would remove the need for an OLR in his case. Put another way, if and only if an extended sentence such as I have described is imposed, the risk criteria are not satisfied. 

With some hesitation I am willing to accept the risk assessor’s conclusion and the consequences that follow from it. 

Accordingly the sentence will be an extended sentence as I have just described, with a custodial element of 17 years and an extended licence period of 8 years. 

The custodial element of this sentence will be backdated to 11 April 2024 when the accused appeared on petition and was remanded.

At the time of his conviction the accused was made subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Given the sentence just imposed, and by operation of law, he will be subject to those requirements for an indefinite period.

I will make non harassment orders in respect of the three complainers [NAMES REDACTED]. It is appropriate that the order in relation to [NAME REDACTED] includes provision for it to apply in favour of [NAME REDACTED], being who features in the statutory aggravation in charge 13. 

The accused must not approach or contact any of the complainers nor [NAME REDACTED], nor attempt to approach or contact any of them, directly or indirectly, by any means, for an indefinite period."

6 October 2026