18-year-old who attacked teen at bus stop with machete loses appeal against imposition of OLR

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] HCJAC 10
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Beckett

Cahlum Hamilton pled guilty in October 2025 to assaulting a 15-year-old complainer with a machete in addition to the statutory offence of carrying a blade without reasonable excuse for authority and had an OLR imposed on him with a punishment part of two years. He argued that an OLR was excessive given his youth and there being no evidence of insurmountable barriers to his treatment and rehabilitation.

The appeal was heard by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Beckett, with Lord Matthews and Lord Armstrong. Loosemore, advocate, appeared for the appellant and Cross, advocate depute, for the Crown.

Never be the same

On 18 June 2024 the appellant travelled from Paisley to East Kilbride, having allegedly received a threatening message from the complainer. He approached the complainer at a bus stop along with two of his friends and, without any provocation, punched him in the face after alleging that he had been cheeky to the appellant’s aunt. The appellant was seen to pull out a large machete-style knife and strike the complainer on the back of the neck, resulting in a 4cm wound that missed his spinal column by approximately 3mm.

In a victim impact statement of May 2025, the complainer described continued neck pain that he anticipated to be a permanent consequence of the attack. He was now in constant fear of his life and was too afraid to use public transport or go out alone. His mother and sister now also suffered from anxiety and depression, and he felt that his family would never be the same again. A risk assessment report noted the appellant had previously been convicted of assault to severe injury in January 2025, arising from an incident in 2022 where he had also been carrying a blade, and had served a 270-day sentence in Polmont YOI in consequence.

For the appellant it was submitted that had the sentencing judge adopted the approach desiderated by the High Court in Ferguson v HM Advocate (2014), and looked ahead to the time when the appellant may be released after potential rehabilitation, he would not have been able to find that the risk criteria were met on the balance of probability. This was not to say that an OLR could not be imposed on a young person as other recent decisions such as Moreno v HM Advocate (2024) had made clear, but in those cases the young persons involved were older than the appellant had carried out premediated sexual offences.

Sustained pattern of violence

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Beckett noted the reluctance of the risk assessor to make decisions about the appellant’s long term risk, saying: “At 18, his personality is not fully formed, and he may mature and his personality characteristics may change for the better. We understand that, but also note that he has a condition, ADHD, that will endure and which will require long-term management with a medication regime with which his compliance has been very inconsistent. We also note a repeating pattern of diverse forms of violence commencing at a very young age.”

He added: “Charge 1 was a very serious example of an assault to the danger of life, coming within 3 mm of causing irreparable damage or death when hacking at the neck of his victim with the machete. Despite earlier attempts to suggest otherwise to the reporting social worker, that is what he confirmed to the risk assessor that he did. As he put it, he chopped at the back of the complainer’s neck. On the agreed narrative and given what the appellant told the risk assessor generally, we do not consider this to have occurred in a chance and spontaneous encounter.”

Considering the sentencing judge’s report, Lord Beckett said: “He noted the sustained pattern of violence from early childhood across a range of settings and that the appellant has a propensity to cause serious endangerment to the public at large in the risk assessor’s view. He understood that she considered him to present a high risk and an imminent risk of causing serious harm if released at the point of sentencing. She envisaged that he may make gains through interventions in custody but cautioned that ‘expectations must be realistic and he may well continue to struggle to make progress… and it may be that his risk remains high following intervention’. The sentencing judge concluded on a balance of probabilities that the risk criteria were met. He was entitled to reach that conclusion on the material before him and did not err in doing so.”

However, he finished by observing: “It is possible that this appellant will respond to incarceration and the associated regime and resources. This may mean that he could be allowed parole relatively soon after the expiry of his short punishment part. If he should continue to behave lawfully thereafter, and avoid serious offending, then sentencing objectives would have been achieved but he would remain subject to lifelong restrictions for what may be many decades when a point may come when they are no longer necessary for the protection of the public. At present there appears to be no provision that would allow for the removal of such restrictions, even if it may be decades later. It may be that this aspect of the OLR regime would benefit from further review by the Scottish Parliament.”

The appeal was accordingly refused.