Angus Sinclair v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2016] HCJAC 24

Note of appeal against sentence:- On 14 November 2014, at Livingston High Court, the appellant was convicted after trial of two charges of murder, known as the World’s End murders. A Criminal Justice Social Work Report was not required as the appellant was serving a prison sentence at the time of conviction. The trial judge imposed a life sentence with a punishment part of 37 years. The appellant appealed against the punishment part selected on the grounds that it was excessive. It was submitted that:- (1) the length of time since the commission of the offences was an inappropriate consideration to take into account; (2) there should be consistency with comparable cases and for the appellant to receive the longest punishment part to date, there had to be some reason to distinguish the case from other cases referred to and no such justification had been given by the sentencing judge; (3) the sentencing judge had erred by taking into consideration offences which took place after the 1977 murders including a murder committed by the appellant in 1978 and 11 sex-related offences committed during 1978-1982. It was submitted that the judge had not been entitled to have regard to these offences as section 101A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, applied only to offences committed after 28 March 2011; (4) the trial judge had erred in describing the punishment part which he imposed as “effectively one of just over 35 years” as the sentence imposed in 2001 was not a determinate sentence but a life sentence; and (5) the trial judge did not sufficiently consider what a judge would have imposed had the appellant been convicted in 1977. On behalf of the Crown the Lord Advocate submitted that section 101A of the 1995 Act did not extinguish any part of the common law and in the present case it was necessary for the sentencing judge to be aware of all the background circumstances including the appellant being subject to two life sentences and that he had been convicted of similar offences in the past. Here the court refused the appeal. In relation to the selection of 37 years the court considered that the sentencing judge chose that figure not because it represented the period of time since the commission of the offences but rather due to the gravity of the offences. As far as referring to other cases the court considered that the experienced trial judge was best placed, having heard the evidence, to select the appropriate punishment part and the appeal court should be reluctant to alter that assessment. The court considered that the trial judge was entitled in the exercise of his discretion, having regard to all of the relevant factors and the gravity of the offences, to select a punishment part at the very top of the range. In relation to the issue of the appellant’s criminal record the court considered that section 101A simply reflects the current common law position as it has developed over the years and it does not limit a judge’s sentencing powers. The court agreed with the Crown contention that the common law allows the sentencing judge to have regard to all of the relevant circumstances of a case for the purposes of sentencing and, in particular, a sentencing judge should have an overall view of an accused’s life to be able to sentence appropriately.