Daniel Jackson Also Known As Blyth Also Known As Edwards V. Her Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Johnston,Lord Philip |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] HCJAC 37 |
| Published date | 02 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | XC829/07 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Date | 02 July 2008 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lord Johnston Lord Philip | [2008] HCJAC 37 Appeal No: XC829/07 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD PHILIP in NOTE OF APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE by DANIEL JACKSON also known as BLYTH also known as EDWARDS Appellant; against HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE Respondent; _______ |
Act: Jackson QC, Public Defence Solicitors Office
Alt: Mackay, Advocate Depute; Crown Agent
2 July 2008
The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of culpable homicide narrating a series of appalling pieces of driving with a defective motor vehicle in the Colinton area of Edinburgh which culminated in the serious injury of a mother and the death of a child. The various aspects relating to the driving are as narrated in the extensive indictment.
In approaching the question of sentence the sentencing judge selected as his starting point a period of sixteen years. Thereafter applying, as he thought fit, certain dicta in the case of Du Plooy v HM Advocate 2003 SCCR 640 he selected a period of seven years out of that sixteen to reflect the need for the sentence to provide protection for the public. He thereafter, again apparently following Du Plooy, deducted that period from the total of sixteen years before applying any discount. Such discount was necessary having regard to the fact that the appellant had pled guilty at the earliest possible stage and had never challenged his guilt. He therefore allowed a discount in respect of the period to which he was applying it of one third. In the net result the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was thirteen years.
Mr Jackson QC for the appellant submitted both that the starting point of sixteen years was too high having regard to the fact that while this was a very bad case of dangerous driving amounting to culpable homicide such was at almost the highest level for such a crime and should not have been selected in the context of this case. The appellant was totally consumed with remorse at what he had done.
In addition Mr Jackson submitted that the selection of the period of seven years to effect public protection was both wrong in principle and arbitrary in fact. It was wrong in principle he maintained because in a case of dangerous or bad driving the chances of repetition was such that there was no need for the public protection to be reflected in the sentence, certainly when there was no record on similar conduct. In any event the figure of seven years was simply plucked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gemmell, Robertson, Gibson and McCourt v HM Advocate
...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; 2......
-
David Brown V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...need to protect the public is a major point of the sentence. We refer to Lindsay v HM Advocate 2007 SCCR 377; and Jackson v HM Advocate [2008] HCJAC 37. [12] The question which then arises is whether this court should then reduce the discount given by the sentencing judge, when there is no ......
-
Mark Martin+james Gemmell+paul Robertson V. Her Majesty's Advocate
... ... charges against the first-named appellant also narrated that the offences had been committed ... the decision of two judges in the case of Jackson v HM Advocate 2008 S.C.C.R. 733 may require to be ... ...