Her Majesty's Advocate V. Paul Thomson+stuart Dick
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Justice Clerk,Lord Macfadyen,Lord Nimmo Smith |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] HCJAC 32 |
| Court | Sheriff Appeal Court |
| Date | 28 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | XC904/05 |
| Published date | 28 March 2006 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lord Justice Clerk Lord Macfadyen Lord Nimmo Smith | [2006] HCJAC 32 Appeal Nos: XC904/05 and XC903/05 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK in APPEALS by HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE Appellant; against PAUL THOMSON and STUART DICK Respondents: _______ |
For the first respondent: Forbes; Lavery Smith, Glasgow
For the second respondent: Keenan, sol adv: Lavery Smith, Glasgow
28 March 2006Introduction
[1] These appeals arise from an incident on the night of 11 June 2004 when the respondents and a third man, whose identity is unknown, assaulted two paramedics in circumstances that we shall describe. On 14 June 2004 the respondents appeared on petition at Glasgow Sheriff Court. In November 2004 Crown counsel instructed that the case should proceed against Thomson only, there being a doubt as to the sufficiency of evidence against Dick. In May 2005 the Crown received a forensic report that provided DNA evidence against Dick. Crown counsel then instructed that both respondents should be indicted.
[2] The respondents were indicted for trial at a sitting on 14 June 2005 along with a third accused named Steven Thompson. That diet was discharged on the motion of the solicitor for Dick who wished time to consider the forensic report. All three accused were later indicted for trial at a sitting on 11 October 2005. At a continued first diet on 23 September, the Crown, reasonably enough, accepted Steven Thompson's plea of not guilty, having established that he was in prison at the time.
[3] Shortly before the trial diet the solicitors for Thomson offered a plea of not guilty to charge (1) (breach of the peace) and pleas of guilty to charges (2) (assault to severe injury) and (3) (assault to injury) under deletion from charge (2) of allegations of robbery and of striking the complainer with a torch and from charge (3) of allegations of assault by striking the complainer with a belt and by closing the ambulance door against his legs. The Crown indicated that that plea was acceptable. Later still, the solicitors for Dick notified the Crown of their intention to tender the same plea at the trial diet. In the circumstances the Crown did not require the witnesses to attend but kept them on standby.
[4] When the case called for trial, the respondents pled guilty to the following charges in their amended form:
"[2] On 11 June 2004 at Boydstone Road, Thornliebank, Glasgow at a part thereof near No. 612 Boydstone Road you did, while acting with another whose identity is to the Prosecutor meantime unknown, assault Stephen Rutherford ... then engaged in the course of his duties as a paramedic and did repeatedly punch and kick him on head and body, strike him repeatedly on the body with a belt, all to his severe injury
you PAUL THOMSON did commit this offence while on bail, having been granted bail on 24 May 2004 at Glasgow Sheriff Court;
[3] On 11 June 2004 at Boydstone Road, Thornliebank, Glasgow at a part thereof near No. 612 Boydstone Road you did, while acting with another whose identity is to the Prosecutor meantime unknown, assault Scott McLeod ... then engaged in the course of his duties as a paramedic and did repeatedly punch and kick him on the head and body, strike him on the body with a torch to his injury
you PAUL THOMSON did commit this offence while on bail, having been granted bail on 24 May 2004 at Glasgow Sheriff Court."
On 8 November 2005 Sheriff Deirdre MacNeill QC sentenced each respondent to a period of probation of two years with a condition that he should perform 220 hours of community service.
[5] The Crown appeals against both sentences on the ground that they are unduly lenient.
The facts
[6] The complainers were employed by the Scottish Ambulance Service. At 11.20 pm on the date libelled they attended at the locus to treat a friend of the respondents who was drunk and unconscious. The respondents obstructed them as they treated the patient. Thomson got into the ambulance. Steven Rutherford told him to leave and went to the driving seat. The respondents then assaulted him by punching him on the face and kicking him on the body. Thomson then took off his belt and repeatedly struck Steven Rutherford with it. Steven Rutherford fell to the ground during the attack. Scott McLeod tried to help him by pulling Thomson away. The respondents then punched and kicked him. One of them struck him with a torch. The complainers were able to drive the patient to hospital and were treated there for their own injuries. Soon after the incident the police found the respondents hiding near the locus.
[7] Stephen Rutherford sustained a four centimetres cut on his left eyebrow which required three stitches. He suffered tenderness in his left shoulder and multiple bruises to his upper body. He was off work for four weeks. He is now more cautious about his work. He has bought protective clothing. He has constant recall of the incident. Scott McLeod sustained bruising to both of his upper arms. He was off work for six weeks. He is now nervous and is especially cautious when dealing with groups of people.
[8] Thomson was aged 17 years at the time. No previous convictions were libelled. Dick was aged 19 years. He had two previous convictions for minor offences in 2001 and 2002.
Pleas in mitigation tendered to the sheriff
[9] For Thomson it was said that he and Dick had summoned an ambulance when their friend collapsed through drink. Thomson too had been drinking heavily. When the ambulance arrived, he tried to assist the complainers, but was told to leave the ambulance. He felt slighted. He then committed the assaults libelled. He was remorseful and ashamed. The bail order referred to in the charges related to road traffic offences involving the theft of a motor vehicle which had now been dealt with by a community service order which he had already completed. He came from a good family. He was in the third year of a joinery apprenticeship. He earned £200 weekly, from which he paid £30 to his mother and £10 towards catalogue debts. No previous convictions were libelled. His plea had been agreed before the trial and the witnesses had not been required to attend.
[10] For Dick it was said that he had been in the company of Thomson and others and had been drinking heavily. He had also taken an ecstasy tablet. He was remorseful and ashamed. He had little recollection of the incident, but accepted his guilt of the offences. His previous record was at a minor level and was not analogous. He came from a good family. He was in full-time employment. He earned £300 weekly. His plea had been agreed at the trial sitting, but the witnesses had not been required to attend.
The reports and the sheriff's decision
[11] The sheriff continued the cases for reports. She said
"Now, as I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Her Majesty's Advocate V. David Graham
...MillbankUNK 2002 SLT 1116; 2002 SCCR 771 Advocate (HM) v Peebles 7 August 2009 unreported Advocate (HM) v Thomson; HM Advocate v DickUNK [2006] HCJAC 32; 2006 SCCR 265; 2006 GWD 11-205 Attorney-General's Reference (No 89 of 2004) (Re) sub nom R v CoxUNK [2004] EWCA Crim 3222 Attorney-Genera......
-
Gemmell, Robertson, Gibson and McCourt v HM Advocate
...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] C......