FISHER, APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE BY, AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2015] ScotHC HCJAC_18 (03 March 2015)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >> FISHER, APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE BY, AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2015] ScotHC HCJAC_18 (03 March 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2015/2015HCJAC18.html
Cite as: [2015] ScotHC HCJAC_18

[New search] [Help]


 

APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY


 

Lady Paton


Lady Smith


 


 

[2015] HCJAC18

HCA/2014-004958-XC

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS

 

delivered by LADY PATON

 

in

 

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE

 

by

 

ANDREW FISHER

 

Appellant;

 

against

 

HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE

 

Respondent:

 

_____________


 

Appellant:  N Wilson Solicitor Advocate;  Gilfedder McInnes

Respondent: A Brown QC, AD;  Crown Agent


 


4 February 2015


 


[1]        The appellant was selling ecstasy tablets to fund his own heroin habit.  He was found with over 100 ecstasy tablets at an event, a rave, and the plea which was tendered on his behalf was on the basis of a “one-off intent to supply situation” rather than continuing supply over weeks and months. 


[2]        The appellant’s arrest resulted in his coming off heroin, without any assistance, and also finding steady employment.  He has no material previous convictions, and has never before served a custodial sentence.  We are advised today that he has thought carefully over what has occurred, and has resolved never to become involved in illegal drugs again. 


[3]        While we agree wholeheartedly with the sheriff’s approach to the question of supplying class A drugs, we consider that, in the particular circumstances of this case, more weight should have been given to the mitigating factors.  Accordingly, in our view, the starting point selected should have been two and a half years.  Applying the discount of 25%, the sentence would be one year, ten months. 


[4]        We accordingly quash the sentence of three years and substitute therefor a sentence of two and half years, discounted to one year, ten months.          


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


lau.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2015/2015HCJAC18.html