Man who beat friend unconscious and left him outside to die has punishment part extended

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] HCJAC 14
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Pentland

Christopher Brown was convicted of the murder of Henry White in March 2023 following an eight-day trial, although an additional charge of attempting to defeat the ends of justice was withdrawn by the Crown. The sentence was challenged as unduly lenient given the severity of the attack and the circumstances of the offence.

The appeal was heard by the Lord Justice General, Lord Pentland, with Lord Matthews and Lord Armstrong. The Solicitor General for Scotland, Ruth Charteris KC, appeared for the Crown and McCall KC and Black, advocate, for the respondent.

High culpability

The details of the offence as narrated in the charge were that the appellant repeatedly struck the deceased on the head with his elbow, seized him on the body and pulled him to the ground, repeatedly punched him on the body, repeatedly stuck him on the head and body with his knee, and then dragged him outside and murdered him. In returning their verdict, the jury deleted part of the charge libelling additional attacks with a television wall bracket, and at the end of the Crown case the advocate depute removed reference to repeated use of a pole to strike the deceased.

The Crown case largely depended on the evidence of Leanne McKenzie, the respondent’s girlfriend at the time and a friend of the deceased, who was present at the locus and saw the respondent drag the deceased outside. An upstairs neighbour described hearing banging and a female screaming on the night of the attack, and a consultant pathologist spoke to the severity of the deceased’s injuries.

In her sentencing remarks the judge explained that she proceeded on the basis that the respondent had dragged the deceased outside while he was still living but unconscious. He had 11 groups of previous convictions including multiple assaults and breaches of bail conditions. She noted that the respondent told the author of the CJSWR he did not intend to murder the deceased, that he had tendered a plea of guilty to culpable homicide, and that the remaining detail of the charge did not refer to the use of a weapon.

For the Crown it was submitted that there was no reference made by the judge to the relevant sentencing guidelines and it was not clear how she had concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the high level of culpability. The respondent had continued to attack the deceased after he fell unconscious multiple times and did not check on him when he was left outside.

Blamed the deceased

Lord Pentland, delivering the opinion of the court, said of the assessment of punishment parts: “As is made clear in HM Advocate v Boyle (2010), a punishment part of 12 years is lower than would be appropriate in most cases of murder. We agree that a punishment part of that length should not be imposed unless there are strong mitigatory circumstances or exceptional circumstances, for example where the offender is a child. Here the judge selected a punishment part of 13 years. Undoubtedly, that was a low punishment part.”

He continued: “The respondent was convicted of the crime of murder. He all along disputed his guilt of that offence. His acceptance of guilt of a lesser charge does not in any way mitigate his guilt of the more serious offence. It does not point to true remorse for his murderous conduct. It is evident from the respondent’s attitude when interviewed for the CJSWR that he disputes that he is guilty of murdering the deceased and indeed blames the deceased for having been intoxicated and for in some way causing the respondent to behave as he did.”

Considering what an appropriate sentence would be, Lord Pentland said: “Although not entirely on all fours with the circumstances in HM Advocate v Callander (2014), there are a number of similarities. The important point for present purposes is that Callander did not involve the use of a weapon; it involved a sustained attack over a period of perhaps five minutes. In the present case there were three separate episodes of violence, although none involved the use of a weapon. The attacks took place over a longer period of time than in Callander. The level of violence used by the respondent was substantial and prolonged.”

He concluded: “In Callander this court observed that the conduct of the respondent in leaving the deceased to die and in failing to summon assistance was an aggravating factor. Again, one can see a degree of similarity with the circumstances of the present case. Finally, the respondent in Callander, like the present respondent, had a significant criminal record involving a number of offences of violence. The headline punishment part in Callander would have been 17 years.”

Taking this and the 18-year punishment part imposed in Laurie v HM Advocate (2019) into account, the court quashed the 13-year punishment part selected by the judge and substituted one of 17 years.