Crown appeal against leniency of sentence for man who ran over wife with his car successful in High Court

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] HCJAC 27
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Pentland

William Budge pled guilty to the attempted murder of his wife and two additional charges of abusive behaviour and was sentenced to seven years and four months’ imprisonment for the attempted murder charge, which ran concurrently with the sentences for the other offences. The Crown argued that the headline sentence of eight years’ imprisonment

The appeal was heard by the Lord Justice General, Lord Pentland, with Lord Doherty and Lord Clark. The Lord Advocate, Bain KC, appeared for the Crown and Culross, advocate, for the respondent.

Callousness and cruelty

Throughout the respondent’s relationship with the complainer, he would shout and swear at her and call her names. The circumstances giving rise to charge 1 were that the complainer woke up in bed one day to find the respondent’s hands around her throat. Charge 2 encompassed behaviour including abusive texts sent while the complainer was on holiday with her family and poking her in the head in order to get her to listen to him.

In around March 2024, after the events in the first two charges, the complainer left the respondent and moved into a flat owned by her niece’s partner. On 14 April 2024 she was returning to the flat from a family gathering when the respondent arrived in his car and blocked her in. After he tried unsuccessfully to force her into his car, he drove it into the complainer, and then over her, the offside wheels of the car driving over her as he left for the main road. The events were captured on CCTV and witnessed by the complainer’s niece and seven-year-old great nephew.

The complainer’s injuries were life-threatening and left her with permanent difficulties with her vision and possible memory issues. Upon her discharge from hospital two months after admission, she was able to walk with a stick and was expected to return to normal walking. The sentencing judge remarked that the callousness and cruelty of his acts was astonishing but recognised that he had no previous convictions.

For the Crown it was submitted that this was a particularly serious example of attempted murder. The respondent had deliberately run over the complainer and then turned back through traffic to run her over a second time. This was the culmination of a pattern of domestic abuse and violence extending over a number of years and justified a headline sentence well in excess of eight years.

It was further submitted that the sentencing judge had erred in ordering the sentences on all three charges to run concurrently. The offences in charges 1 and 2 were distinct from the one in charge 3, with the effect that they had been committed for free. For the respondent it was submitted that the test for undue leniency was not met, the judge having properly taken account of the respondent being a 62-year-old man with no previous convictions.

Seriously aggravated

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Pentland said of the respondent’s culpability: “The respondent deliberately attempted to kill the complainer by driving his car at her. He did this twice, on the second occasion slowing down so that he could be sure to drive over her as she lay on the ground. In effect he used his car as a deadly weapon against the complainer in two murderous attacks. It is obvious that a car driven directly at a person, which is what happened in the present case, is highly likely either to kill the target of the attack or at least to cause very serious injury with lasting consequences. The offence was seriously aggravated by being committed in the presence of the complainer’s niece and her young child.”

He continued: “Having regard, however, to the sentences imposed in cases such as HMA v McBurnie (2024, unreported) and HMA v Hughes (2024, unreported), each of which involved somewhat similar sets of facts to those of the present case, and to the collective experience of the members of this court, we are satisfied that the total headline sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment fell outside the range of sentences which, taking account of all the relevant factors, could reasonably be considered appropriate. The sentence failed adequately to reflect the gravity and consequences of the offence libelled in charge 3. It can properly be categorised as unduly lenient.”

Determining what an appropriate sentence would be, Lord Pentland said: “In view of the determined nature of the attacks, their murderous quality and the many other aggravating features, we consider that the headline sentence for the offence of attempted murder should be 14 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, of which we would attribute 18 months to the [abuse] aggravation. We consider that 18 months represents a significant additional penalty, having regard to the totality of the sentence.”

He concluded: “We consider that there is force in the Crown’s submission that by making the sentences on the three charges run concurrently the judge imposed an overall sentence which was unduly lenient. The offences on charges 1 and 2 were entirely separate and independent crimes. They are deserving of separate punishment. The appropriate means of marking each of those offences, in the particular circumstances of the present case, is to make each of the three sentences run consecutively.”

The court therefore quashed the sentence imposed on charge 3 and substituted it for a sentence of nine years and eight months’ imprisonment, including the plea discount. The sentences for each of the three charges were ordered to run consecutively, with the result that the total sentence served would be 10 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.