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 Lewis Simpson
Oct 22, 2026
Upon sentencing, Judge McCartney made the following remarks:
"Lewis Simpson, on 11 September 2026 , you were found guilty, at the High Court in Glasgow, of a single charge of engaging in a course of behaviour, covering in excess of two-year, that was abusive of your (then) partner.
"Whilst the jury made substantial deletions to the charge, you were convicted of 4 separate elements of behaviour constituting a course of abusive conduct. One of those elements was repeated conduct by you of abusing the complainer by compressing her neck to her injury. Another was of abuse on Christmas Eve into Christmas day, resulting in the complainer being injured. You were also convicted of two further episodes of physical abuse, both of which including compressing the complainer’s neck, and one of which was to the danger of the complainer’s life.
"I note from the social work report that you have some insight into the serious nature of the offences of which you have been convicted, and acknowledged the life threatening nature of the act of compressing the complainer’s neck. However, elsewhere in the report it is noted, disputed by you, that you made attempts to minimise the seriousness of your behaviour.
"I take into account that period of the libel commenced when you were only 15 years of age. The last of the elements of the charge occurred when you were 17 years of age. You are now only 22. Accordingly, the guideline for sentencing young persons applies, and so I have taken account of your youth and immaturity when assessing culpability. I note that you come before the court as a first offender and thus have not served a sentence of custody before. I have also taken into account everything said on your behalf today.
"The compression of the complainer’s neck on repeated occasions, and on one occasion to the danger of her life, is a serious matter. The courts have seen a rise in such type of offences. As has been repeatedly stated by the Appeal Court, conduct such as choking, strangling or inhibiting another person’s breathing in any context, sexual or otherwise, is always criminal. Consent is not a defence. Such conduct can have profound implications for any complainer, in terms of a complainer’s physical health and mental health.
"In this case the complainer’s victim impact statement sets out the effects of the crime on her, detailing the profound effects on her mental health.
"I note the Appeal Court has emphasised that conduct such as choking, strangling and neck compression generally merits severe punishment to deter such conduct which, as has been described by the Appeal Court, prevalent in society, insidious, harmful, often controlling and always extremely dangerous.
"In this case, based on the conviction before me, I am satisfied that only that a custodial sentence can be imposed given the gravity of the offence.
"Taking into account your age, that you come before the court as a first offender, I limit that sentence to a period of 32 months imprisonment from today.
"I also make a non-harassment order and order that you shall not approach, contact or communicate with the complainer, or attempt to approach, contact or communicate with her, either directly or indirectly, for an indefinite period."