Paul McManus v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2015] HCJAC 46

Note of appeal against sentence:- On 8 January 2015, following a trial at Livingston High Court, the appellant was found guilty of various charges:- (charge 1) attempted robbery; (2) theft; (3) attempted robbery; (4) robbery, attempted murder and murder; and (5) attempting to defeat the ends of justice. The appellant was sentenced to detention without limit of time, with a punishment part set at 26 years. The circumstances of charge 4 were that on 8 April 2014 the appellant was in the Crookston area of Glasgow looking to steal cars. He was drunk and on drugs. The appellant forced his way into the home of an 81 year old retired police officer demanding his car keys and stabbed him three times, almost killing him. The complainer’s wife came to his assistance and was stabbed 37 times and died from her injuries. The appellant took a computer some cash and a decanter and attempted to take one of the cars from the driveway. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed. It was submitted on his behalf that having regard to the age of the appellant (19) the trial judge had given insufficient weight to that factor having regard to H.M.A. v Clark 2010 SCCR 210 and also to the appellant’s troubled background. It was further submitted that the cumulative calculation that had been carried out by the sentencing judge in relation to the totality of the charges was excessive. Here the court refused the appeal. It was stated by the Lord Justice Clerk in delivering the opinion of the court at paragraph 12:- “There are some crimes which so plum the depths of depravity that, even in a man so young as the appellant, only a very substantial punishment part can be seen as appropriate to reflect the elements of punishment and deterrence. This is undoubtedly such a case... In crimes of this nature, with a course of conduct of the type described, the youth of an appellant and a deprived background can only have a limited effect in selecting the punishment part. The trial judge took full account of these matters in the appellant’s case. ”