High Court reduces sentence of Glasgow man who punched partner’s brother and damaged vehicles while on bail

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2023] HCJAC 39
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Doherty

Counsel for Alan James argued that the sentencing sheriff had not adequately taken into account steps taken by the appellant to rehabilitate himself while in custody. At the time of the offences, he was subject to bail conditions and had previously spent seven months on remand.

The appeal was heard by Lord Doherty and Lord Boyd of Duncansby. Shand, advocate, appeared for the appellant and Bergin, advocate depute, for the Crown.

Course of conduct

The assault occurred at the appellant’s home after his partner’s brother, B asked him to stop being abusive towards his sister. After repeatedly punching B in the head and abusing his partner, the appellant drove his van at 60-70mph along Cathcart Road in Glasgow and collided with speed with a car, which itself spun and hit another car. He then drove on the wrong side of the road towards a police car, which had to take evasive action to avoid a head-on collision.

A police pursuit ensued, during which the appellant damaged other vehicles in the road. He was eventually stopped by other road users and escaped on foot. Police spotted him later and, while he was being arrested, he bit a police officer and shouted religious and homophobic abuse. At the police station he refused to provide a specimen of breath, it being clear he was intoxicated.

The Criminal Justice Social Work Report noted that the appellant’s case records indicate a lack of motivation over the years to engage with addiction services. Two letters of support were submitted to the sheriff, one from a prison officer describing him as having an excellent work ethic and another from the prison chaplain, who confirmed that the appellant was working through the Alcoholics Anonymous programme and had improved in how he viewed his past problems and their cause.

It was submitted that, bearing in mind that the appellant had already been on remand for seven months at the time of sentencing, and that his last custodial sentence had been in 2010, a non-custodial disposal was available and would have satisfied all of the relevant sentencing purposes. The period selected by the sheriff was excessive, taking account of the fact that all of the offences had formed part of a course of conduct carried out on a single evening.

Self-centred and disgraceful

Lord Doherty, delivering the opinion of the court, said of the offences: “This was a highly reprehensible and sustained course of dangerous driving at high speed which endangered members of the public, road users, and the police. The appellant was intoxicated when he committed all of the offences. His behaviour before, during and after the dangerous driving was self-centred and disgraceful.”

However, he continued: “The sheriff’s report is thorough. He was conscious of the need for the totality of the penalties to be appropriate and proportionate. With that end in view he made the sentence for charge 1 a concurrent sentence. Nevertheless, standing back and looking at the totality of the penalties, we are persuaded that the cumulative effect is excessive.”

Addressing the attempts at rehabilitation made by the appellant, Lord Doherty said: “We attach more weight than the sheriff did to the appellant’s commitment in prison to address his past behaviour and his alcohol abuse. While we sympathise with the sheriff’s view that this has come rather late in the day, we do not see that as a good reason to refrain from giving the appellant some credit for it. A more important consideration is that the commitment appears to be genuine and demonstrable.”

He concluded: “In our view there is also some force in the submission that the aggregate of the periods attributed to the bail aggravations is on the high side. While we do not disagree with the sheriff’s view as to the sentences which should be consecutive, we do not ignore the fact that all of the offences were committed during an extended drunken episode in the course of a single evening. In the whole circumstances we think that the cumulative length of the sentences of imprisonment should be 32 months.”

The appeal therefore succeeded to that extent only, with a 54-month disqualification from driving upheld.