SCTSPRINT3

JASON ALEXANDER JORDAN v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE


Submitted: 06 June 2006

APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY

Lord Johnston

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

[2006] HCJAC 53

XC141/06

OPINION OF THE COURT

delivered by LORD JOHNSTON

in

NOTE OF APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE

by

JASON ALEXANDER JORDAN

Appellant;

against

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

Respondent:

_______

Act: G. Martin, Solicitor Advocate; Martin, Johnston & Socha, Dunfermline

Alt: M. Hughes, A.D.; Crown Agent

6 June 2006

[1] The appellant pled guilty on 2 March 2006 at the High Court in Kilmarnock to a charge of contravening the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982 section 52(1)(a). The charge related to pornographic material involving children.

[2] The trial judge imposed an extended sentence of 8 years and 8 months, backdated to 8 February 2006. The custodial part of that sentence was fixed at 4 years and 8 months and the extension period at 4 years.

[3] Mr. Martin, on behalf of the appellant, based his submissions on the provisions of subsection (5) of section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which he submitted placed an absolute ban on any court involvement in an extended sentence for a statutory offence which exceeded the maximum term of imprisonment permitted by the statute creating the statutory offence in question.

[4] In this case the sentence actually imposed by the sentencing judge was a period of 8 years and 8 months, backdated to 8 February 2006. Such a sentence plainly falls within the maximum sentence of 10 years, which the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 permits for a contravention of section 52(1)(A).

[5] Mr. Martin submitted that it was clear the sentencing judge had started the discounting process from a total figure of 11 years, if the custodial part and the extension period she mentioned were added together. It was argued this reasoning rendered incompetent the sentence she had actually imposed. .

[6] With that we do not agree. Whatever may have been the reasoning of the sentencing judge, in the ultimate result the sentence she imposed did not contravene the provisions of section 210A(5) of the 1995 Act.

[7] For these reasons the appeal is refused.