High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh: Selecting an Appropriate Sentence for Extreme Crimes by a Young Offender: Campbell (Aaron) v HM Advocate, 2019 SLT 1127
| Published date | 01 February 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018319889170 |
| Author | Robert S Shiels |
| Date | 01 February 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
The Journal of Criminal Law
2020, Vol. 84(1) 99–102
High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh:
ª The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Selecting an Appropriate Sentence
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319889170
for Extreme Crimes by a Young
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
Offender
Campbell (Aaron) v HM Advocate, 2019 SLT 1127
Keywords
Sentence, young offender, abduction, rape, murder, Scotland
Aaron Campbell was 16 years of age when a jury held unanimously as proved charges against him of the
abduction, vaginal and anal rape and murder of a six-year-old girl in Rothesay on the Isle of Bute. He
was made the subject of an order for detention without limit of time and with a punishment part of 27
years. His appeal was on the statutory ground that the sentence was excessive. The submission on appeal
was that while the crime was uncommonly grave the trial judge had placed undue weight on the
pessimistic assessment of the Appellant being unable to change and that such an assessment was more
a question of future risk rather than an aggravation of the severity of the crime to be reflected in the
punishment part. In particular, the trial judge was said to have erred in concluding that the challenges in
modifying the Appellant’s thinking and behaviour had led him to make inadequate allowance for the
mitigatory effect of youth.
Held, appeal against sentence allowed. First, the trial judge had been searching for the balance
between factors which were relevant to both punishment and future risk. These factors in complex cases
would frequently overlap. The detailed information suggesting the extent to which the appellant was likely
to present a future risk, coupled with the appalling nature of the crime and the bleak prospects for change,
had nevertheless led the sentencer to make inadequate allowance for the mitigatory effect of youth. The
likelihood for change in the appellant might be limited, but, on the basis of expert assessment, it was not
possible entirely to rule out any residual capacity for change in such a young individual, even allowing for
the atrocious nature of the crime. A determination of irreparable corruption, following expert assessment to
that effect, should not be made by the court at that stage, as it was a question for the Parole Board in due
course. In classifying the Appellant as falling into that category, the trial judge had erred and had subse-
quently underestimated the mitigatory effect of youth (at [28]). Secondly, from the current case law on
sentences for extreme crimes, it could be seen that even for an adult a punishment part of 27 years would be
reserved to mark only such extreme crimes and one would...
To continue reading
Request your trial