Robert Chalmers Against Her Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Eassie,Lord Brodie,Lady Smith,Lord Wheatley,Lord Justice General |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] HCJAC 59 |
| Date | 09 May 2014 |
| Published date | 05 June 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Year | 2014 |
| Docket Number | XC407/11 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
| |
| [2014] HCJAC 59 | |
| Lord Justice General Lord Eassie Lady Smith Lord Brodie Lord Wheatley
| Appeal No: XC407/11
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by THE LORD JUSTICE GENERAL
in
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
by
ROBERT CHALMERS Appellant; against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE Respondent: _______
|
For the appellant: Ogg, (sol adv); Callaghan McKeown, Renfrew
For the Crown: Kearney (sol adv) AD; Crown Agent
9 May 2014
Introduction
[1] On 12 May 2011 the appellant was convicted of the murder of Samantha Wright and of defeating the ends of justice by, inter alia, mutilating and attempting to conceal her body. On the murder charge he was given a life-sentence with a punishment part of 23 years, three years of which was attributed to matters covered by the second charge. On the second charge he was sentenced to six years imprisonment to run concurrently with the life sentence.
[2] On 28 March 2014 this court refused his appeal against sentence so far as it was based on the application and interpretation of section 2 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. The court continued the appeal for further submissions in relation to the subsidiary matters contained within the remaining ground of appeal.
The trial judge’s sentencing statement
[3] When passing sentence, the sentencing judge said inter alia:
“On charge 1 the sentence of the court is life imprisonment. This is the second time that such a sentence has been passed on you. In addition, to reflect solely the needs of retribution and deterrence, I require to fix the minimum period which you must spend in prison before you can even be considered for the possibility of release on licence by the Parole Board. I have had regard to all that was said on your behalf. This included the different circumstances of your previous conviction of murder in 1974, when you were aged 22; your age now; and your health problems. I was also referred to the appeal court’s approach in the case of Alan Cameron v HMA. Given that you maintain your denial of guilt Mr Smyth said nothing further in mitigation on your behalf.
I have also had regard to your full personal circumstances and background, all as set out in the social enquiry report. Throughout you have expressed no guilt, remorse or contrition. It was only through skilled and dedicated police, forensic and legal work that you were brought to justice. All those involved deserve great credit. Because of the consequences of the passage of time, and unless and until you give a truthful account, we will never know exactly what happened that night. However your conduct after Samantha’s death satisfied the jury that you are guilty of murder and it satisfies me that this was a depraved and dreadful crime. In addition your previous conviction for murder weighs heavily against you …”
[4] In his report to this court, the sentencing judge says:
“Although I sentenced only in respect of the appellant’s conduct at the time of the murder, the whole circumstances indicated that it was likely to have been a violent assault on a young woman, who previously was unknown to the appellant, and whom he had invited to his home. As stated at the time of sentencing, I regarded this to be a depraved and dreadful crime, which had devastated the lives of Samantha Wright’s family and many friends.”
Submissions for the appellant
[5] The solicitor advocate for the appellant submitted that the punishment part of the sentence was excessive having regard to the fact that the cause of death could not be ascertained;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal Against Sentence By Angus Sinclair Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...47, a sexual murder in 1999 (20 years); Campbell v HM Advocate 2004 SCCR 220, a murder with six victims (20 years); Chalmers v HM Advocate 2014 JC 229, murder and dismemberment (23 years); Coubrough v HM Advocate 2008 SCCR 317, a murder in 1971 (12 years); Currie v HM Advocate 2003 SCCR 676......
-
Appeal Against Sentence By Jordan Ally Donald Owens Against Hma
...prisoner; …” 8 [16] The proper approach wh ere there is another conviction on the same indictment is set out in Chalmers v HM Advocate 2014 JC 229. The sentencing judge should decide whether the conviction on the lesser charge should be reflected in the punish ment part. He or she should th......