High Court rejects appeals against conviction by man and woman involved in 1996 murder of teenage girl

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] HCJAC 6
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Carloway

Andrew Kelly and Donna Brand were convicted of the murder of Caroline Glachan in December 2023 alongside Robert O’Brien, the principal actor in the offence, who was given a life sentence with a punishment part of 22 years. Mr Kelly solely appealed against his conviction, while Ms Brand appealed against both conviction and sentence. A fourth alleged participant in the attack, Sarah O’Neill, died in 2019 before trial.

The appeals were heard together by the Lord Justice General, Lord Carloway, along with Lord Matthews and Lord Beckett. Jackson KC and Henry, advocate, appeared for the first appellant, A Ogg, solicitor advocate, for the second appellant, and A Prentice KC AD and Irvine AD for the Crown.

Common criminal purpose

The appellants and Mr O’Brien attacked the deceased near a bridge over the River Leven between Bonhill and Renton. She suffered multiple injuries, lost consciousness, and drowned after falling into the river. At the time of her death, the deceased and the appellant Brand were both sexually involved with Mr O’Brien, then aged 18. Ms Brand was unhappy about Mr O’Brien seeing the deceased and told people that she was “going to batter” her.

The only eyewitness to the attack was Archie Wilson, then aged four-and-a-half, who was deemed to be unfit to give evidence at trial and had his statements admitted as hearsay. Mr Kelly and Ms O’Neill had been babysitting him on the night of the attack, and took him and his infant brother James with them to the river.

Archie told his mother and others that he saw the appellants, Ms O’Neill and Mr O’Brien fighting a girl who ended up falling into the river and hitting her with a pole and with rocks. The co-accused had been seen returning to Mrs Wilson’s house some time after midnight, with Mr Kelly’s trousers hanging on the fireguard in the sitting room.

Counsel for Mr Kelly argued that his evidence that the first appellant was at the locus could not be corroborated, and that there was no evidence of bad feeling between himself and the deceased, in contrast to the other co-accused. Any concert would have to have been spontaneous, and the trial judge had misdirected the jury on this route to conviction.

For the second appellant it was submitted that the fact she had made a remark that she was going to batter the deceased two weeks before the attack was not sufficient to prove a preconceived plan to confront her. Even if there was a common criminal purpose, which included the taking of human life, it could not be said that the appellant Brand, by providing voluntary and intentional or reckless assistance, identified herself with the conduct of her co-accused.

In respect of the punishment part of 17 years imposed on Ms Brand, one year less than the 18 years imposed on Mr Kelly, the length was said to be excessive having regard to the lesser role she played in the attack and her lack of previous convictions.

Murderous intent

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Carloway said of the evidence before the jury: “There was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that, when the four adults left the house, they had a pre-conceived plan to inflict serious injury on the deceased, one obvious consequence of which would be that she would lose her life. This arises, first, from the simple fact that all four left together at around midnight, accompanied by the children, to meet the deceased.”

He continued: “[The post-mortem] corroborated Archie’s account that a stick and pole had been used to strike the deceased and that boulders had been thrown at, and struck, the deceased. The deceased had been left to drown by all those at the scene. The jury would be entitled to infer from what actually happened that this was a pre-planned concerted attack. The death of the deceased may not have been in contemplation of all at the scene, but the murderous intent of those using weapons with such force on a 14-year-old girl is self-evident.”

Lord Carloway concluded on Mr Kelly’s appeal against conviction: “He was described by Archie as throwing boulders at the deceased. The fact that this happened is corroborated by the evidence of the pathologist who spoke to some of the injuries having been caused in this manner. His presence at the scene is corroborated by his wet trousers, capable of supporting that he had been in the river, being found by Mrs Wilson on the following day.”

Left her to drown

Turning to Ms Brand’s appeals, Lord Carloway said: “It was she who had the most obvious motive to harm [the deceased]. She left the flat with her boyfriend and the others with a view not simply to confront the deceased but to cause her serious harm. That is what happened. Her participation in the common plan to do this is manifest on the evidence.”

He concluded on sentence: “The trial judge expressly stated that he recognised that the appellant Brand had played a lesser role than Mr O’Brien and the appellant Kelly in that there was no evidence that she participated in the assault. That may have merited a lower punishment part than the appellant Brand’s co-accused. The judge recognised this in differentiating between the three accused. Nevertheless he took into account the part played by the appellant Brand in threatening to ‘batter’ the deceased and ultimately, like the others, leaving her to drown in the waters of the Leven.”

Both appeals were therefore refused.