Crown loses appeal against nine-year sentence imposed on man who repeatedly dropped partner in attempted murder

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] HCJAC 3
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Beckett

Michael Harvey was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment after being found guilty of two charges including one of sustained assault on the complainer amounting to attempted murder. The Crown’s position on appeal was that the sentence was unduly lenient given the repetition of the respondent’s actions and the effect they had on the complainer.

The appeal was heard by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Beckett, with Lord Matthews and Lord Armstrong. Kennan KC, advocate depute, appeared for the Crown and Findlay KC for the respondent.

Relearning to walk

On 1 October 2023 the respondent and the complainer, who were at the early stages of an affair, met at the Ibis Hotel in Glasgow city centre shortly after midnight. After drinking and playing pool together, they left the hotel shortly after 2am. From around 2:25am the respondent became aggressive and CCTV footage showed him pulling the complainer up and dropping her onto the pavement before striking her head against a bus stop. After the respondent threw an object at her and further struck her against the ground, the complainer lost consciousness,

Two women stopped in a car and came to assist, which led to the police taking the respondent and complainer to A&E. Whilst the respondent sought to check-in the complainer, she fell to the ground as she tried to sit down in the waiting area, striking her head. They left 25 minutes later without the complainer being seen. Notably, the CCTV evidence showed that the complainer had left the hospital voluntarily. After they returned to the hotel, guests heard a male voice and banging noises coming from their room at around 5:00am.

The next morning, the respondent told hotel staff that the complainer had collapsed in the shower, after which she was taken by ambulance to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The complainer required to undergo a decompressive craniectomy whereby part of her skull was removed to relieve pressure, and later a cranioplasty to reconstruct the skull. Her sister spoke to the complainer requiring relearning to walk and talk after repeated operations and the considerable limitations placed on her life after the attack.

For the Crown it was submitted that the sentencing judge had failed to grasp the full extent of the respondent’s culpability given the complainer’s vulnerable condition, the repeated acts of violence, and the respondent having impeded the possibility of earlier medical attention by misleading passersby and the police. Senior counsel for the respondent, who had conducted the respondent’s defence, submitted that the Crown was doing little more than expressing its disagreement and offered no justification for the contention that the sentence was unduly lenient.

Fair evaluation of events

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Beckett began by noting the extremely serious harm caused to the complainer, and said: “The sentencing exercise was not straightforward. Whilst the jury determined that the respondent’s actions constituted attempted murder, they are not typical examples of the way in which that crime is committed. No weapons were used. There was no kicking or stamping. The level of violence used was modest compared to most cases of attempted murder, but it was inflicted on someone who was in a vulnerable condition and her vulnerability was increased by the consequences of the respondent assaulting her.”

He added: “The force of the criticisms that the respondent should have done more to assist the complainer is modified by his actions in trying to accelerate her being treated at the hospital and her choosing to leave hospital. The jury rejected the respondent bearing criminally responsibility for that. None of this means that we underestimate the extent of the terrible harm done to the complainer and its permanent and profound consequences, but these considerations form a necessary part of a fair evaluation of events.”

Considering the decision not to impose an extended sentence, Lord Beckett said: “We have carefully analysed the reasoning on which the reporting social worker reached the conclusion that an extended sentence may be appropriate. We identified certain flaws and errors in that reasoning. It was, in any event, for the judge to determine if the criteria were met for making an extended sentence. We consider that the absence of convictions for assault and domestic abuse was a relevant consideration in the judge’s assessment.”

He concluded: “Whilst this terrible crime was sustained over periods of time in the early hours, and it involved repetition, it is not clear that it is truly part of any wider pattern of behaviour. In the particular circumstances of this case, the judge was entitled to refrain from finding that an extended sentence was necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the respondent.”

The court therefore refused both grounds of the Crown’s appeal.