Cameron Laurie v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2019] HCJAC 3

Note of appeal against sentence:- On 5 July 2018, at Aberdeen High Court, the appellant along with his co-accused, were convicted of a charge of murder and a charge of attempting to defeat the ends of justice by attempting to clean up the blood from the locus and providing the emergency services with a misleading address where an unknown assault victim might be found. The appellant and his co-accused had previously been convicted of the same crimes but with the inclusion of reference to the deceased being repeatedly struck on the head and body with a dog lead. A sentence of life imprisonment and a punishment part of 18 years had been imposed in relation to the murder charge with a sentence of one year concurrent on the attempt to defeat the ends of justice charge. The convictions were quashed on 8 November 2017 due to the previous trial judge failing to give the jury directions on culpable homicide. The same sentence of life imprisonment with an 18 year punishment part was re-imposed on both accused following the re-trial, however, a concurrent sentence of 5 years imprisonment was imposed in relation to the attempt to defeat charge. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed it being contended it was excessive. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that a lower punishment part should have been imposed due to the deletion of the reference to the dog lead from the libel in the re-trial. It was submitted that there had been a difference in the roles of the appellant and his co-accused, there being no direct evidence of the appellant kicking or stamping on the deceased. It was further submitted that, having regard to what was said by the court in Ferguson v HMA 2010 SCCR 399, the sentence on the attempt to defeat the ends of justice charge should not have been higher than it had been following the first trial. Here the court allowed the appeal in so far as it related to the increase in the concurrent sentence for the attempt to defeat the ends of justice charge. The court reduced the sentence to one year on the basis that a sentence following a re-trial should not normally be greater than that originally imposed. In relation to the appeal against the punishment part selected the court refused the appeal. The court noted that one of the difficulties for the appellant was that neither he nor his co-accused elected to give evidence at the trial and that, in returning the verdict they had, the jury held both accused responsible for a concerted attack upon the deceased. The court considered that there was no basis to distinguish between the conduct of the appellant and his co-accused and the deletion of the reference to the use of the dog lead did not reduce, to any significant extent, the level of violence used against the deceased. The court stated that the murder involved the appellant and his co-accused perpetrating a very violent attack upon a vulnerable person in his own home and, in light of the appellant’s schedule of previous convictions, the punishment part selected could not be said to be excessive.