Teenager detained for culpable homicide of Elgin bus driver loses appeal against sentence

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] HCJAC 4
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Matthews

NRL was detained for four years and four months, reduced from a headline sentence of six years and six months, after pleading guilty to the culpable homicide of Keith Rollinson by section 76 procedure. On appeal he argued that the sentence was unduly harsh having regard to the circumstances of the offence and his youth.

The appeal was heard in the High Court of Justiciary by Lord Matthews, who delivered the opinion of the court, and Lord Beckett. McCall KC appeared for the appellant and Kennan KC, advocate depute, for the Crown.

Lower end of scale

On 2 February 2024, Mr Rollinson, aged 58, was working in the course of his employment as a bus driver. During that evening the appellant, then aged 15, and several other youths had congregated in Elgin town centre and consumed alcohol. The appellant was noticeably intoxicated. At a bus station at about 10.30pm he tried to board a bus at which was to be driven by Mr Rollinson but was refused travel.

After becoming agitated and arguing with Mr Rollinson, the deceased sought assistance from a colleague. When he returned to the concourse, the appellant pointed his phone in Mr Rollinson’s face, apparently filming him. Mr Rollinson attempted to grab the phone, which led to a physical struggle during which he was headbutted. He obtained the appellant’s phone and threw it on the ground, which caused the appellant to lose control and repeatedly punch him on his head and body. He collapsed unconscious and was taken to hospital but passed away at 00:45am the following day.

The post-mortem determined that Mr Rollinson had significant narrowing of the coronary arteries, with it being likely that the physical altercation led to increased blood pressure and cardiac arrythmia, followed by cardiac arrest. In his Criminal Justice Social Work Report, the appellant was noted as having previously assaulted a bus driver and having a strong chance of rehabilitation, being assessed as a model young person during his period on remand.

It was submitted for the appellant that his level of culpability was low. Insufficient weight had been given to Mr Rollinson’s actions in grabbing and later stamping on his phone. Not enough weight had been attached to the fact that he was a child, and on any view the offence was at the lower end of the scale for culpable homicide.

Endeavour to protect

Lord Matthews began his opinion by noting the difficulty of the task of sentencing, before saying: “We have considered carefully the submissions of counsel and have seen for ourselves the CCTV footage. It is plain that the appellant, who was by all accounts intoxicated, would not take no for an answer. While the deceased Mr Rollinson grabbed his mobile phone and stamped on it, that provides no excuse or justification for the gross overreaction on the part of the appellant. While we note the nature of the injuries sustained by Mr Rollinson, we note also that the force was sufficient to break a bone in the appellant’s hand.”

He continued: “In addition, Mr Rollinson was acting in the course of his duties as a bus driver. The court must endeavour to protect people who provide a service to the public and can be in a vulnerable position. It is of significance that this is not the first time the appellant had assaulted a bus driver. Such conduct must be deterred.”

Assessing the 33 per cent discount given by the sentencing judge, Lord Matthews said: “The discount, while a matter for the discretion of the sentencing judge, was excessive, given the passage of time between appellant’s appearance on petition and the tendering of the plea. In Geddes v HM Advocate (2015), the court considered that a plea of guilty 3 months after first appearance was not intimated at the earliest opportunity and deemed an allowance of 25% appropriate.”

He concluded: “Making due allowance for the age of the appellant in this case and what we were told by senior counsel, we are satisfied that a discount of no more than 25% would have been appropriate. That means that the sentence which was in fact imposed is not out of step with the authorities to which reference has been made.”

Accordingly, the court found there had been no miscarriage of justice, and the appeal was refused.