APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE BY GRANT GAY AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2017] ScotHC HCJAC

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!

[1] Lest there be any misapprehension in the mind of the appellant or of any persons in

court, we should make it clear that we are not concerned with a charge of culpable homicide

in this case. The jury deleted culpable homicide and acquitted the appellant of that element

of the charge and so that is not a matter which is before this court. What we are concerned

with today is whether the sentence of 2 years imprisonment for assault to severe injury was

[2] The appellant appeared for trial at the High Court in Edinburgh on a charge which

initially, until the jury deleted it, included an element of culpable homicide. The trial began

on 3 March 2017 and finished on 8 March 2017 when the jury returned a verdict of guilty of

assault to severe injury by punching. The temporary judge imposed a sentence on 28 April

[3] It is argued in the case and argument and again before us today, that this should not

have been a custodial sentence at all and that justice would be served by what Mr Paterson

described as a robust Community Payback Order. If the court were not persuaded of that

view, it is argued that the custodial sentence of 2 years was excessive and we should

[4] In this case, there are factors that count in favour of the appellant and there are

factors that count against him. These are narrated in the judge’s report to this court. We

take account of all of these factors. In particular, in favour of the appellant, there is a

doctor’s letter which indicates that he suffers from depression, low mood and anxiety; he

appears to have had a good work ethic; he has been a hard worker all his life and is

described as a team player and we have been provided with several letters of reference; he

has been involved in the local community and particularly as a coach and running an

amateur football club; it is reported that he has shown genuine remorse and distress; he is

in a stable relationship with his wife. The Criminal Justice Social Work Report is what we

would describe as neutral - it is certainly not a bad report. He has the benefit of section 204

of the 1995 Act in that he has never served a custodial sentence before and moreover, his

wife is ill and we have been shown a letter from the National Health Service indicating that

a provisional date for surgery has been identified later this month and that she will require

[5] There are however, factors which count against the appellant. He has previous

convictions for crimes of violence, including one conviction for assault to injury and two

convictions for assault of police officers. Moreover, the circumstances surrounding this

offence were regarded by the sentencing judge as of importance and indeed, Mr Paterson

indicated to us today that it was accepted that this was a very serious matter. The trial judge

in his report to us observed at paragraphs 41 to 45 the following:

“The actions of the appellant both prior to the assault and after its perpetration,

aggravated matters. Prior to the assault, the appellant was at home and could have

simply stayed there. However, he chose to return to the public house clearly on the

evidence for the purpose of confronting the deceased. He was clearly annoyed at

some actual or perhaps only perceived slight. His wife described him as being

“pissed off” by the deceased’s gesture which she told him about. After the assault,

knowing that the deceased was in considerable difficulty, the appellant did nothing

to assist him. He simply left the scene, leaving his victim to his fate. He did not seek

any assistance, not even when he arrived home. I also had to bear in mind that this

was not the first time that the appellant had resorted to violence. In all the

circumstances, standing the jury’s verdict, I was of the view that only a custodial

[6] The sentencing judge went on to indicate that he chose a sentence of 2 years

imprisonment to reflect the reduction in the charge made by the jury and had the appellant

been convicted of culpable homicide, he would have imposed a longer sentence of

imprisonment. There is no error of law that we can find in the sentencing judge’s reasoning

and we are unable in all of the circumstances of this case to categorise the sentence of 2 years

imprisonment as being excessive and for these reasons, this appeal must be refused.

	[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 >> APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE BY GRANT GAY AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2017] ScotHC HCJAC_62 (08 August 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2017/[2017]_HCJAC_62.html Cite as: [2017] HCJAC 62

Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons