Leonard v Houston
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 01 August 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] HCJAC 46 |
| Date | 01 August 2007 |
| Docket Number | No 7 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Appeal Court, High Court of Justiciary
Lord Macfadyen, Lord McEwan
Sentence - Appellant pleading guilty and then failing to co-operate in the preparation of reports and failing to appear at court on numerous occasions - Whether sheriff entitled to take into account the appellant's behaviour since pleading guilty and apply no discount - Du Plooy v HM Advocate - Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (cap 46), sec 196
Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (cap 46) provides that in determining what sentence to pass on an offender who has pled guilty, the court may take into account the stage in the proceedings at which he indicated his intention to plead guilty.
The appellant pled guilty at Lanark Sheriff Court to a total of seven charges, mainly for crimes of dishonesty. The pleas had been tendered at various stages of the procedure of the five complaints on which the charges appeared. The appellant failed to co-operate in the preparation of reports and failed to appear at court on numerous occasions. Following further procedure, all five complaints eventually called before the sheriff for sentence on 15 March 2007. The sheriff imposed consecutive sentences amounting to 21 months' imprisonment and gave no discount, stating that the utilitarian benefit of the pleas had been cancelled out by the appellant's failure to attend court diets and other appointments. The appellant appealed against the sentences imposed and argued that the sheriff had erred in not applying a discount.
Held that whether the disbenefit of unco-operative conduct completely outweighs, or merely reduces the utilitarian benefit of the plea is a matter of circumstance and degree but in the circumstances of this case, the sheriff had been entitled to regard the disbenefit caused by the appellant's conduct as having wholly elided the benefit of the pleas (para 17); and appeal refused.
John Paul Leonard was charged on five summary complaints at the instance of Stewart Houston, Procurator fiscal, Lanark, the libels of which set forth various crimes of dishonesty and one charge in respect of his failure to appear at court. At various stages in the procedure of these complaints, the appellant tendered pleas of guilty to a total of seven charges. On 15 March 2007, in respect of all five complaints, the sheriff (NC Stewart) imposed five consecutive sentences totaling 21 months' imprisonment. The appellant subsequently appealed to the High Court of Justiciary against those sentences.
Cases referred to:
Du Plooy v HM AdvocateUNK 2005 1 JC 1; 2003 SLT 1237; 2003 SCCR 640
The appeal called before the High Court of Justiciary, comprising Lord Macfadyen and Lord McEwan, for a hearing on 1 August 2007.
Eo die the court refused the appeal. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Lord Macfadyen-
Opinion of the Court- [1] In these five appeals the appellant, John Paul Leonard, raises one issue relating to the sentences imposed on him by the sheriff. That issue is whether, in considering what discount, if any, to allow under sec 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (cap 46) ('the 1995 Act'), the sheriff erred in taking into account conduct on the part of the appellant subsequent to the date on which he indicated his intention to plead guilty.
[2] When the five complaints called before the sheriff on 15 March 2007, she imposed on the appellant five consecutive sentences the total duration of which amounted to 21 months. The appellant has what the sheriff rightly described as a 'prodigious' record of previous convictions. In the appeals it was accepted that the sheriff had been correct to conclude that only custodial sentences were appropriate, and had been entitled to order that the five sentences which she imposed be served consecutively.
[3] In appeal number XJ580/07 the charge to which the appellant pled guilty was one of theft by shoplifting, aggravated by having been committed while the appellant was subject to two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gemmell, Robertson, Gibson and McCourt v HM Advocate
...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 Advoc......
-
John Paul Leonard V. Procurator Fiscal Lanark
...--> APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY Lord Macfadyen Lord McEwan [2007] HCJAC46 XJ580/07 XJ581/07 XJ502/07 XJ503/07 XJ504/07 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD MACFADYEN in NOTES OF APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE by JOHN PAUL LEONARD Appellant; against PROCURATOR FISCAL, LANARK Respondent......