Her Majesty’s Advocate v Michael Jason Leith [2016] HCJAC 8

Crown appeal against sentence:- On 22 September 2015, at Edinburgh High Court, the respondent pled guilty to attempting to conspire to do certain sexual things for which he was sentenced to a period of 18 months imprisonment. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the grounds that it was unduly lenient with reference to the case of H.M.A. v Bell 1995 SCCR 250, namely, that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge outwith the range which the sentencer could reasonably have imposed. Counsel on behalf of the respondent accepted that the offence the respondent had pled guilty was abhorrent, however, it was submitted that the conspiracy was as far removed from the actual doing of the things referred to as it was possible to get and still amount to a criminal offence. It was noted by the sentencing judge in his report to the court that it was a difficult case to sentence. Here the court considered that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment was lenient but not unduly so. The court did, however, consider that the sentencing judge had erred in not addressing the concerns raised by the author of the criminal justice social work report who suggested children would be at significant risk whilst the respondent remained in the community and that a period of post‑release supervision should be considered. Here the court considered that the absence of an extension period in terms of section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 was unduly lenient and an extended sentence of 4½ years, with a custodial term of 18 months and an extension period of 3 years, was substituted.