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.

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.

PF v Claire Bellamy

Nov 10, 2026

At Paisley Sheriff Court, Sheriff Gill imposed a Community Payback Order on Claire Bellamy, after the offender was found guilty of deliberately hunting a fox using dogs. She was ordered to complete 300 hours of unpaid work, and has been banned from keeping dogs - excluding terriers and collies - for ten years.

Upon sentencing, Sheriff Gill made the following remarks:

"I found you guilty after trial of deliberately hunting a fox using dogs under s1(1) Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023.

"The evidence in this trial was overwhelming. I commend the evidence of the two witnesses Andrew Davies and Elizabeth McLauglin.

"The recording taken by Mr Davies, of the fox being chased by multiple hounds, was particularly harrowing to watch.

"There was much made at trial of who held the hunting licence, that was a red herring and had no bearing whatsoever in the case. It was agreed in the joint minute of agreement that the licence did not include Ms Bellamy as a permitted named assistant.

"Your defence during the trial was that you did not deliberately hunt the fox, however that was not borne out by your behaviour and actions which are quite clearly shown in the recording.

"Your actions were cruel, inhumane and selfish; you showed no regard for the life of an innocent animal.

"On being convicted your solicitor indicated that reports were unnecessary as a custodial sentence was not competent under the act; that was incorrect and I referred him to s.1[2] of the Act.

"I have read the background report; it does not make good reading. You take little responsibility for the offence and believe that you did nothing wrong, you have shown no empathy towards the animal being hunted, and further state that you are 'being made an example of.'

"Your comments to the social worker state that you do not agree with the legislation, it makes it more difficult to hunt foxes; Ms Bellamy, that is the purpose of the legislation.

"What you don’t understand is that the law is the law, and you are bound by the law.

"You have conducted 1500 hunts. I understand that you have now resigned from the role of Master of the Lauderdale Foxhunt and no longer have any hounds.

"I note that you are 51, work as a shepherd and have no previous convictions; the reports indicate that you are at low risk of re-offending. I must also consider the presumption against short term sentences and whether there are community-based alternatives open to the court, and there are.

"I intend to impose a CPO with an order requiring you to carry out unpaid work.

"I am going to impose 300 hours of UPW; this is the maximum number of hours I can impose. This order is imposed as a direct alternative to custody. This is a level 2 order; you will have 12 months to do the work. I must warn you that if you do not do the UPW as I have stated, that will be a breach of the order, and the matter will be brought back to court. If this happens, take it from me that you may very well receive a custodial sentence.

"I have considered whether I should impose a disqualification order. Having been addressed by parties, I am going to impose a disqualification order under s.22[2], and all the subsections therein but that will include an exception, namely a terrier dog and collie dogs. The disqualification period will be for 10 years."

9 November 2026