Gemmell, Robertson, Gibson and McCourt v HM Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Wheatley,Lord Osborne,Lady Paton,Lord Eassie,Lord Justice Clerk |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] HCJAC 129 |
| Docket Number | No 31 |
| Published date | 22 December 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Date | 20 December 2011 |
Appeal Court, High Court of Justiciary
Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), Lord Osborne, Lord Eassie, Lady Paton, Lord Wheatley
Justiciary - Sentence - Discounting in respect of guilty plea - Appropriate approach to sentence discounting - Whether discounting applies to the public protection element in a sentence - Whether discounting applies to imposition of a period of disqualification or penalty points - Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (cap 46), sec 196
Section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (cap 46) provides that, in determining what sentence to pass on, or disposal or order to make in relation to, an offender who has pled guilty to an offence, a court shall take into account the stage in proceedings at which intention to plead guilty was indicated and the circumstances in which the indication was given. In passing sentence on such an offender, the court shall state whether having taken account of those matters the sentence imposed is different from that which the court would otherwise have imposed and, if not, the reasons why it is not. Section 196(2) provides that where the court is passing sentence on an offender under sec 205B(2) of the Act and the offender has pled guilty to the offence for which he is being sentenced the court may after taking into account the matters mentioned in subsec (1) pass a sentence of less than seven years' imprisonment or detention, but any such term of imprisonment or period of detention shall not be less than five years, two hundred and nineteen days.
The appellants appealed against sentence raising the issues of: the general question of the proper approach to sentence discounting and whether it applies to the public protection element in a sentence; whether discounting can apply to the imposition of a period of disqualification or of penalty points. The Crown cross-appealed in relation to the final appellant on the ground that, by reason of the discount allowed, the sentence was unduly lenient.
Held that: (1) the sentence discounting process involved three stages, first, deciding what the sentence would be if no discount arose; secondly, deciding whether there should be a discount; and thirdly, if so, deciding what the amount of it should be (per Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), para 27); (2) discounting was a matter of discretion for the sentencer and only in exceptional circumstances would the appeal court interfere (per Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), paras 29, 81); (3) the factors relevant to discounting are: saving in jury costs, time and inconvenience; sparing complainers and other witnesses from giving evidence (per Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), paras 44, 45); (4) the factors of the strength of the Crown case, previous convictions and public protection, assistance to the authorities, remorse, and uncooperative behavior were irrelevant to discounting (per Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), paras 48-52); (5) in particular, considerations of public protection, although relevant to the headline figure, should not be taken into account when assessing the discount (per Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), para 57, Lord Eassie, para 141, Lord Wheatley, para 167; dissenting on that issue, Lord Osborne, para 119, Lady Paton, paras 151 et seq); (6) any discount should be applied to the whole sentence, without attempting to identify and exclude elements relating to public protection; (7) neither the extension period of extended sentences nor minimum sentences qualified for discounting except in relation to the latter as expressly provided for by statute (per Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), paras 66, 68); (8) discounting applied to disqualification from driving and penalty points subject to the statutory minimum sentencing requirements thereanent (Stewart v Griffithsoverruled, per Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), paras 69-72); and appeals allowed (Lord Osborne dissenting on appeal 6, para 135; Lady Paton dissenting on appeals 1, 2 and 3, paras 158-160); and cross-appeal by the Crown refused.
Du Plooy v HM Advocate 2005 1 JC 1 distinguished.
Horribine v ThomsonSC 2008 JC 306 overruled (dissenting Lord Osborne, para 123).
Stewart v GriffithsUNK 2005 SCCR 291 overruled.
James Kelly Gemmell appealed against sentence and his appeal was conjoined with six other appeals which raised questions of principle on sentence discounting.
Cases referred to:
Adair v MunnSC 1940 JC 69; 1940 SN 62; 1940 SLT 414
Advocate (HM) v AlexanderUNK [2005] HCJAC 77; 2005 SCCR 537
Advocate (HM) v BellUNK 1995 SLT 350; 1995 SCCR 244
Advocate (HM) v ForrestUNK 1998 SCCR 153; 1998 GWD 8-378
Advocate (HM) v GrahamSCUNK [2010] HCJAC 50; 2011 JC 1; 2010 SLT 715; 2010 SCCR 641; 2010 SCL 789
Advocate (HM) v Thomson and anrUNK [2006] HCJAC 32; 2006 SCCR 265; 2006 GWD 11-205
Attorney-General's Reference (No 7 of 1989) (Re) sub nom R v ThorntonUNK (1990-91) 12 Cr App R (S) 1; [1990] Crim LR 436
Balgowan v HM AdvocateSCUNK [2011] HCJAC 2; 2012 JC 5; 2011 SLT 285; 2011 SCCR 143; 2011 SCL 418
Brown v HM AdvocateSCUNK [2010] HCJAC 24; 2010 JC 148; 2010 SLT 964; 2010 SCCR 393; 2010 SCL 899
Cameron v RUNKUNKUNKUNK [2002] HCA 6; (2002) 209 CLR 339; 187 ALR 65; 76 ALJR 382
Charlotte v Fraser Sh Ct, 21 January 2010, unreported
Coogans v MacDonaldSC 1954 JC 98; 1954 SLT 279
Coyle v HM AdvocateSCUNK [2007] HCJAC 52; 2008 JC 107; 2007 SCCR 479; 2008 SCL 131
Docherty v McGlennan 1998 GWD 4-176
Du Plooy v HM AdvocateUNK 2005 1 JC 1; 2003 SLT 1237; 2003 SCCR 640
Horribine v ThomsonSCUNK [2008] HCJAC 21; 2008 JC 306; 2008 SLT 503; 2008 SCCR 377; 2008 SCL 724
Jackson v HM AdvocateSCUNK [2008] HCJAC 37; 2008 JC 443; 2008 SLT 709; 2008 SCCR 733; 2008 SCL 958
Jordan v HM AdvocateSCUNK [2008] HCJAC 24; 2008 JC 345; 2008 SLT 489; 2008 SCCR 618; 2008 SCL 729
Kane v HM AdvocateUNK 2003 SCCR 749; 2004 GWD 8-179
Khaliq v HM AdvocateUNK 1984 SCCR 212
Leonard v HoustonSCUNK [2007] HCJAC 46; 2008 JC 92; 2007 SCCR 354; 2007 SCL 100
McGowan v HM AdvocateUNK [2005] HCJAC 67; 2005 1 JC 327; 2005 SCCR 497
McKinlay and anr v HM Advocate High Court of Justiciary, 4 December 2009, unreported
Malige v FranceHRC (1999) 28 EHRR 578; [1998] HRCD 897
Markarian v RUNKUNKUNKUNK [2005] HCA 25; (2006) 228 CLR 357; (2005) 215 ALR 213; 79 ALJR 1048
Neilson v PF, Elgin 20 May 2009, unreported
Petch v HM AdvocateSCUNK [2011] HCJAC 20; 2011 JC 210; 2011 SLT 391; 2011 SCCR 199; 2011 SCL 372
RB v HM AdvocateUNK 2004 SCCR 443; 2004 GWD 21-453
R v BarneyUNK [2007] EWCA Crim 3181; [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 37
R v Delucca; R v Murray; R v StubbingsUNKWLRUNK [2010] EWCA Crim 710; [2011] 1 WLR 1148; [2010] 4 All ER 290; [2011] 1 Cr App R (S) 7
R v HarperELRWLRUNKUNK [1968] 2 QB 108; [1968] 2 WLR 626; 52 Cr App R 21; [1967] Crim LR 714; 112 SJ 189
R v LMUNK 2008 SCC 31; [2008] 2 SCR 163
R v MUNK [1996] 1 SCR 500
R v MartinUNK [2006] EWCA Crim 1035; [2007] 1 Cr App R (S) 3
R v Millberry; R v Lackenby; R v MorganUNKWLRUNKUNKUNK [2002] EWCA Crim 2891; [2003] 1 WLR 546; [2003] 2 All ER 939; [2003] 1 Cr App R 25; [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 31; [2003] Crim LR 207
R v Tasker [2003] VSCA 190; (2003) 7 VR 128
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 29 NSWLR 383
Rennie v FrameSCUNK [2005] HCJAC 83; 2006 JC 60; 2005 SCCR 608
Ross v McGowan [2009] HCJAC 82; 2010 SCL 106; 2009 GWD 38-653
Spence v HM AdvocateSCUNK [2007] HCJAC 64; 2008 JC 174; 2007 SLT 1218; 2007 SCCR 592; 2008 SCL 256
Stewart v GriffithsUNK 2005 SCCR 291
Strawhorn v McLeodUNK 1987 SCCR 413
Sweeney v HM Advocate 1990 GWD 25-1385
Tennie v MunroUNK 1999 SCCR 70; 1999 GWD 4-201
Tudhope v EadieSCUNK 1984 JC 6; 1984 SLT 178; 1983 SCCR 464
Weir v HM AdvocateUNK [2006] HCJAC 25; 2006 SLT 353; 2006 SCCR 206
Will v HM Advocate [2010] HCJAC 113; 2010 GWD 37-764
Textbooks etc. referred to:
Archbold, JF, Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2011), paras 5.78 et seq
Ashworth, A, and Redmayne, M, The Criminal Process (4th ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010), pp 312-314
Ashworth, A, Sentencing and Criminal Justice (5th ed, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010), pp 172, 173
Brown, G, "Culpable Homicide: Effect of rejected plea on sentence discount - rationale for the sentence discount" (2011) 110 (4) Criminal Law Bulletin 5, pp 5, 6
Clarke, A, Moran-Ellis, J, and Sleney, J, Attitudes to Date Rape and Relationship Rape: A Qualitative Study (Sentencing Advisory Panel, London, 2002), pp 34, 55, 56
Darbyshire, P, "The Mischief of Plea Bargaining and Sentencing Rewards" [2000] Criminal Law Review 895, p 901
Emmins, CJ, Sentencing (4th Wasik ed, Blackstone, London, 2001), pp 66, 67
Henham, RJ, "Bargain Justice or Justice Denied? Sentence Discounts and the Criminal Process" (1999) 62 (4) Modern Law Review 515, p 537
Parole Board for Scotland, Annual Report 2008-09 (SG/2009/263) (TSO, Edinburgh, 2009), pp 13, 14 (Online: http://www.scottishparoleboard.gov.uk/pdf/Parole%20Board%202008.pdf (8 August 2012))
Parole Board for Scotland, Annual Report 2009-10 (SG/2010/250) (Parole Board for Scotland, Edinburgh, 2010), p 14 (Online: http://www.scottishparoleboard.gov.uk/pdf/Parole%20Board%202009.pdf (8 August 2012))
Renton, RW, and Brown, HH, Criminal Procedure according to the Law of Scotland (6th Gordon ed, W Green, Edinburgh, 1996), vol 1, paras 22.26, fn 3; 23.13 et seq
Sanders, A, Young, R and Burton, M, Criminal Justice (4th ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010), pp 494, 495
Scottish Government, CP(S)A section 306 - Costs and Equalities and the Scottish Criminal Justice System 2005/06 (B57260) (Scottish Government, Edinburgh, 2008), pp 5, 6 (Online: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/237550/0065253.pdf (8 August 2012))
Scottish Government, Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, 2010-11 (Scottish Government, Edinburgh, 2011), pp 12, 13, 28 (Online: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0038/00389834.pdf (8 August 2012))
Scottish Legal Aid Board, Annual Report 2009-2010 (SG/2010/145) (Scottish Legal Aid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Eccles (Edmond) v HM Advocate
-
Note Of Appeal Against Sentence By Scottish Power Generation Ltd Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...material is ingathered and understood” (Ferguson v HM Advocate 2014 SCCR 244, LJC (Carloway) at para [103] citing Gemmell v HM Advocate 2012 JC 223, LJC (Gill) at para [59]), guidelines from the Sentencing Council will often provide a useful cross check, especially where the offences are re......
-
Appeals By Mohammed Ashif And Aliah Ashraf Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...for granted by this court that any accused was entitled to put the Crown to the proof of its case (at para [21]). In Gemmell v HM Adv (2012 JC 223) Lord Eassie said “An accused is always entitled to put the prosecution to the proof of its case; and there may often be potential advantage to ......
-
Crown Appeals Against Sentence By Hma Against Lb, Ji, And Jt
...complainers), or society as a whole. [101] Sentencin g remains “a delicate art based on competence and expertise” (Gemmell v HM Advocate 2012 JC 223 at 59, LJC Gill). The Crown submission that “appropriately severe custodial sentences are a way in which this court can take steps to protect ......
-
Scots Criminal Law and the Right of Silence
...v Scott 1990 J.C. 320, 323 (Lord Hope). 60ibid, 324 (Lord Wylie). 61Du Plooy v HM Advocate 2005 (1) J.C. 1, [21]. 62Gemmell v HM Advocate 2012 J.C. 223, [148] (Lord Eassie). 63Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995, s.117 and sched. 7 repealing Criminal Evidence Act 1898, s. 1(b). and only fo......
-
Four Models Of Judicial Reasoning In Sentencing
...214. 37Mirko Bagaric and Richard Edney, Sentencing in Australia (3rd edn, Thomson Reuters 2016) 27. 38Hereinafter ‘the Appeal Court’. 39[2011] HCJAC 129; 2012 JC 223. 40ibid [59]. 41ibid. 42[2013] HCJAC 150; 2014 SCCR 46 [13]. 43[2014] HCJAC 19; 2014 SCCR 244. 44[2018] HCJAC 50 [18]. 45Ferg......