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 £1, 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!
 |
[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 >> FRASER AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE [2015] ScotHC HCJAC_27 (10 March 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2015/2015HCJAC27.html Cite as: [2015] ScotHC HCJAC_27 |
||
[New search] [Help]
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
|
|
[2015] HCJAC 27 HCA/2014-004764-XC
STATEMENT OF REASONS
delivered by LADY PATON
in
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
by
ALAN FRASER
Appellant;
against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Respondent:
_____________ |
Appellant: C Mitchell; Gilfedder McInnes
Respondent: A Brown QC AD; Crown Agent
4 February 2015
[1] This is a case where the appellant has worked full-time all his life. He was a specialist plant hire technician engineer involved in supplying the railway system. Regrettably his company was taken over, and the appellant became redundant. Suddenly, from being a steady wage-earner, he did not know where the next weekly payment was going to come from. Also, unfortunately, as is set out at paragraph 5 of the criminal justice social work report, he had acquaintances involved in the drug culture. That resulted in his tending and producing cannabis plants, and being involved in their supply.
[2] The appellant has already been convicted of the production and supply of cannabis at a farm near Forfar. In the present case the cannabis plants (at a different location) were valued at £18,000, with their production and supply taking place over a period of two months. In these circumstances it is not perhaps surprising that the sheriff took a stern view of the circumstances: but in our opinion, two matters arise. First, we consider that insufficient weight was given to the mitigating circumstances; and secondly, the sheriff does not indicate what the starting point would have been, even though he states that the sentence was adjusted for the cumulative effect of being a consecutive sentence following the two years, three months imposed for the Forfar conviction.
[3] In the circumstances it is our view that the cumulative effect of the sentence imposed by the sheriff (i.e. 42 months) added to the two years three months already being served, is too high. In all the circumstances we consider that the same sentence as was imposed for the Forfar offence should be imposed for the current offence, i.e. two years three months. We shall therefore quash the sentence of 42 months and substitute therefor a sentence of two years three months. The appeal is allowed to that extent.
