Mother of three jailed for assaulting doorman and police constable has prison sentence quashed in favour of CPO

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] HCJAC 15
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Doherty

Appellant CD pled guilty to three charges on indictment on 5 November 2024, and was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 18 months by her early plea. She argued that there were exceptional circumstances that made a community-based disposal more appropriate, given her role as primary carer for three children.

The appeal was heard by Lord Doherty and Lord Matthews. A Ogg, solicitor advocate, appeared for the appellant and E Lindsay AD for the Crown.

Serious offences

All three of the offences were committed in short succession on the evening of 24 January 2024 when the appellant was on a rare night out with friends and became very drunk as a result of excessive alcohol consumption and the effect of her prescribed medication. Charge 2 involved assaulting a door steward at licensed premises by pushing and kicking him on the body and spitting blood to his face and body to his injury. Charge 3 involved assaulting the same steward by swinging a knife towards him twice.

Charge 5 was a further assault to injury, which was committed after the appellant had been arrested by the police. She bit the hand of a female police constable who had been attempting to adjust the appellant’s crop top in order to maintain her dignity. The sheriff took a very dim view of the offences and considered that, notwithstanding the favourable terms of the CJSWR and the appellant’s role as primary carer for her three children, the offences merited a custodial sentence.

On the appellant’s behalf, it was accepted that these were serious offences, and that the sheriff was right to consider imposing a custodial sentence. However, her mental illness, the fact that she was a first offender, and her role as main carer for her children, including a son who was quadriplegic and suffered from cerebral palsy, made a community disposal appropriate in the circumstances.

Counsel for the appellant added that the CJSWR indicated that there was a low risk of further offending and that she was willing to comply with a community payback order. It was also relevant that she had bene in prison since 18 December 2024 and had served the equivalent of four months’ imprisonment already.

Salutary experience

Lord Doherty, delivering the opinion of the court, began: “The appellant should be in no doubt that the court takes a very serious view indeed of all of these offences. Each of them was serious. Stewards are entitled to expect that they are not assaulted, and that the courts will take a stern view of it if they are. Assaults with a knife require to be viewed particularly seriously, as do assaults on police officers.”

He continued: “Had it not been for what we regard as the exceptional circumstances of this case, we would not have interfered with the sheriff’s sentence. The fact that the appellant was intoxicated at the time is no excuse. It is clear that it will be in the interests of the appellant, her children, and the community, that in future she avoids, or at the very least is extremely careful with, alcohol.”

Considering that a non-custodial disposal was appropriate, Lord Doherty noted: “The appellant is a person to whom the provisions of section 204 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 apply. We have regard to that and to all of the factors upon which Miss Ogg relied. We attach particular weight to the appellant’s caring responsibilities and her importance to the lives of her 3 children, especially her very disabled son.”

He concluded: “This is a case where the Article 8 ECHR rights to family life of the appellant, her partner, and her children are engaged, and where the children’s Article 8 rights should be afforded considerable weight when determining the appropriate disposal. We also weigh in the balance that the appellant has now had the salutary experience of a period in prison.”

The court therefore quashed the sentence of imprisonment which the sheriff imposed and substituted a community payback order with a supervision period of 18 months and 150 hours of unpaid work, reduced from 300 hours to reflect the appellant’s guilty plea and time already served.