APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE BY SCOTT TOWNSLEY AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2016] HCJAC 87
HCA/2016/000332/XC
Lord Menzies
Lord Drummond Young
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD MENZIES
in
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
by
SCOTT TOWNSLEY
Appellant
against
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
Respondent
Appellant: C Fyfe (sol adv); Paterson Bell Solicitors
Respondent: M McFarlane, Crown Agent
14 September 2016
[1] The appellant appeared at a first diet at Dundee Sheriff Court on 21 June 2016, facing a number of serious charges. These included a breach of a special condition of bail, three charges of assaulting police officers while in the execution of their duty and a charge of assaulting a procurator fiscal depute in court whilst she was in the execution of her duty. The sheriff imposed a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment in respect of the breach of a special condition of bail, discounted from a headline of 4 months to reflect the early plea of guilty, the plea being tendered at the first diet. He imposed a sentence of 30 months imprisonment in cumulo discounted from a headline sentence of 40 months in respect of the three assaults on police officers and he ordered that those cumulo sentences should run concurrently with the sentence of 3 months imprisonment for the breach of a special condition of bail. And with regard to the assault on the procurator fiscal depute, which was in charge 9, the sheriff imposed a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, discounted from a headline sentence of 40 months to reflect the early plea of guilty and he appointed that sentence to run consecutively to the sentences imposed in respect of the other matters. The consequence was that the total sentence imposed on the appellant was a period of imprisonment of 5 years which was backdated to 21 March 2016 and it was pointed out to us today on behalf of the appellant that that reflected a headline sentence in total of 6 years and 8 months.
[2] It was submitted to us today that the total sentence was excessive. The submissions were broken down into three headings, (first), that the headline sentence in respect of charges 5, 6 and 7, namely the assaults on police officers was excessive being 40 months in cumulo; (second), that the headline sentence with regard to charge 9, the assault on the procurator fiscal depute of 40 months was excessive; and (third), that the sheriff had failed to take account of the cumulative effect of his sentences and that that total headline sentence of 80 months or 6 years and 8 months was excessive, particularly having regard to the fact that no serious injury was caused.
[3] However, as the sheriff observed in his report to us, anyone who assaults a person who is in the course of performing public duties should be dealt with seriously and imprisonment will often be appropriate. That applies in particular to assaults on the police who, in the course of protecting the public, have to deal with people who are sometimes violent and dangerous and also deeply unpleasant. It also applies to any assault on a person employed in a court in any capacity because it is essential to the administration of justice that those who work in courts must be able to do their work without fear of retribution. The fact that the complainers were engaged in the performance of public duties was an aggravating factor as was the courtroom locus of the assault on the procurator fiscal depute. Those remarks are remarks with which we agree wholeheartedly. In addition to the serious aggravations of these assaults, the appellant has a very bad record of previous convictions, stretching back to 1994 and moreover the offences with which we are concerned today were committed whilst he was on bail.
[4] Having regard to all the circumstances, we are not persuaded that the sheriff erred in the assessment of the seriousness of these charges nor that he failed to take account of the cumulative effect of the sentences. We are unable to categorise the total sentence in this case as excessive and accordingly, we refuse this appeal.