R.H. v. His Majesty’s Advocate [2025] HCJAC 16

Note of appeal against sentence:- The appellant, aged 17, pled guilty to a charge of murder (the appellant was aged 16 at the time of the offence). He was sentenced to detention without limit of time with a punishment part of 18 years selected. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed it being contended that the punishment part selected was excessive. The circumstances were that the appellant had originally lodged a special defence of self-defence and on the first day of the trial CCTV footage of the incident was played and the plea was tendered later that day. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted the punishment part of 18 years was excessive. It was conceded that it was an appalling crime involving the shocking murder of a young mother in a public street in broad daylight with the repeated use of a knife on her head and body. It was submitted that insufficient regard had been had by the sentencing judge to the appellant’s age and the CJSWR outlined the significant and multiple adverse childhood experiences he had suffered from an early age. He had been described as “a vulnerable young person with a significant history of trauma, including early childhood experiences of parental substance abuse and the sudden loss of his mother” and following the commission of the offence had been diagnosed with ADHD. Here the court considered what was said by the court in Haig v HMA [2024] HCJAC 28 and, in particular, the requirement for “retribution” is sufficiently broad and flexible to include the prospect of a young offender’s rehabilitation and inherent in the concept of retribution is the fact that the court should impose upon the offender the “deserved” punishment. The court considered the present case against what was said by the court in Haig. The court considered that this was a shocking offence, however, was satisfied that the punishment part was excessive and that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the appellant’s age, his adverse childhood experiences, including being subject to years of criminal exploitation together with the prospects for his rehabilitation. The court quashed the punishment part imposed and substitute 14 years.