Craig Roy V. Her Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Clarke,Lord Brodie |
| Judgment Date | 16 October 1963 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] HCJAC 134 |
| Docket Number | XC138/12 |
| Published date | 19 October 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Date | 29 August 2012 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lord Clarke Lord Brodie | [2012] HCJAC 134 Appeal No: XC138/12 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD CLARKE in NOTE OF APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE by CRAIG WILLIAM GORDON ROY Appellant; against HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE Respondent: _______ |
Appellant: J. Scott QC, Solicitor Advocate; Bridge Litigation, Glasgow
Respondent: Niven Smith, AD
29 August 2012
[1] At a hearing on 29 August 2012 the court, having heard the submission made on the appellant's behalf, refused his appeal against sentence and indicated that full written reasons for that decision would be given in writing, in due course. The following are those reasons.
[2] The appellant stood trial at the High Court at Glasgow between 18 January and 2 February 2012 on a charge murder, viz:
"on 6 May 2010 at a wooded area adjacent to Wellesley Crescent and Mossneuk Road, both East Kilbride, you CRAIG WILLIAM GORDON ROY did assault Jack Frew, then residing at 32 Milburn Way, East Kilbride, seize him by the body and repeatedly strike and stab him on the neck and body with a knife and you did murder him."
The appellant was convicted, as libelled, of murder, the verdict of the jury being unanimous.
[3] The appellant was two months short of his eighteenth birthday at the time of this offence and was in sixth year at school. The victim was a fellow school pupil who was a year younger than the appellant. The deceased was stabbed by the appellant with a kitchen knife no fewer than 20 times on his neck and chest. He had defensive injuries to his right hand. His most significant injuries were - a wound to the left side of the neck which damaged the underlying main left sided blood vessel; four of the stab wounds to his chest which injured both lungs; and a deep incised slitting wound across his neck which had cut his lower larynx and upper trachea. Several other stab wounds to his chest caused superficial injuries to his liver. The medical evidence, at the trial, was that it was unlikely that he would have survived for more than a few minutes after his injuries were sustained. The trial judge, with justification, in his report to this court, described the attack on the deceased by the appellant as being "a brutal, sustained and merciless attack" which left the deceased dead and mutilated. The trial judge imposed a mandatory life sentence and fixed the punishment part at eighteen years.
[4] The position advanced on behalf of the appellant, at trial was that, while he admitted carrying out the attack he should be found guilty of culpable homicide, rather than murder, on the ground of diminished responsibility. As has been noted, the jury unanimously rejected that contention and found the appellant guilty of murder. Before this court it was argued that the punishment part of eighteen years fixed by the trial judge was, in all the circumstances, excessive.
[5] The background to the murder of the deceased was as follows. Both the appellant and the deceased were openly homosexual. They sat next to each other in the Higher chemistry class at the high school which they both attended. The deceased was a popular pupil at the school. The appellant had been in a relationship with a male who was about a year older than himself. In his evidence to the court he described his relationship with that person as being very important to him, so much so that he considered that, if it were to come to an end, he would be devastated.
[6] The appellant and the deceased had engaged in consensual oral sex together on two occasions. The first occasion had been in early 2008, before the commencement of the appellant's relationship with the older male just referred to. The second occasion had been in early 2010. The appellant maintained that the last mentioned occasion had left him feeling guilty about cheating on his partner and he was, he said, apprehensive that his partner would find out and end their relationship. The deceased was a flamboyant person who openly and regularly flirted with others. He would send sexually explicit text messages to persons, including the appellant. The appellant claimed that during class the deceased would touch him in a sexual manner and invite him to go to the toilet with him. On occasions the deceased would follow the appellant into the toilets and masturbate himself at the urinal next to the appellant. The appellant stated that the deceased's behaviour towards him was both unwelcome and upsetting.
[7] The circumstances leading directly to the death of the deceased, as described by the appellant himself in evidence at the trial, were as follows. The appellant said that the deceased had blackmailed him into meeting him in a wooded area by threatening him that if he did not do so he would tell the appellant's partner about the sexual encounter in early 2010. The appellant, accordingly, agreed to meet the deceased. He said that he feared that the deceased was going to blackmail him to have further sexual relations and that this would involve anal intercourse. On the afternoon in question, the appellant received a text from the deceased in the following terms, "Monday, last ever sexy time in school. I wanna fuck you senseless in a cubicle xxxx". The appellant did not want to have any further sexual relations with the deceased and, in particular, did not want to have anal intercourse with anyone other than his partner.
[8] Against that background the appellant agreed to meet the deceased. Before leaving home, the appellant armed himself with a kitchen knife which had a blade 9.5cm long. He had taken this weapon with him because, he said, he had wanted to scare the deceased and to protect himself. He wanted to make it clear to the deceased that his threats and his behaviour had to stop.
[9] The deceased and the appellant met at an agreed rendez-vous and then proceeded to the wooded area. As they walked there the deceased had touched the appellant's buttocks. When they arrived at the wood the deceased had taken out his erect penis. The appellant had told him to put it away, which the deceased did. The appellant then struck the deceased with the knife.
[10] In evidence the appellant said he had no recollection of striking blows upon the deceased. He thought he remembered falling with the deceased, or seeing the deceased fall. The next thing he...
To continue reading
Request your trial