Man who detained partner and caused her car to crash has sentence lengthened by High Court

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] HCJAC 51
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Beckett

The respondent, STP, was given an extended sentence of nine years and one month with a custodial term of seven years and one month after being found guilty of four charges, two for assault, one of abduction, and one of attempted murder. The Crown argued that the sentencing judge failed to recognise the gravity of the fourth charge and the fact that children had been put at risk.

The appeal was heard in the High Court of Justiciary by Lord Beckett, the Lord Justice Clerk, with Lord Doherty and Lord Matthews. Campbell, advocate depute, appeared for the Crown and Brannigan, advocate, for the respondent.

Not going anywhere

During the weekend of 11 June 2023, the respondent went on an outing with his then partner AA, aged 33, with whom he had an intermittent relationship from 2018. They were accompanied by AA’s children BB and CC, the latter being the respondent’s child. On the evening of 11 June, they returned to the respondent’s home, where AA challenged the respondent as to whether he had been taking drugs.

When challenged, the respondent became agitated and struck her on the head, and when BB intervened and jumped on the respondent’s back, he threw him off and stamped on AA’s wrist. In the course of the same incident, the respondent had locked his front door to prevent AA and the others from leaving and hidden her mobile phone. He also concealed clothing belonging to CC and pinned her to a bed saying that she was not going anywhere.

The respondent then accompanied AA and the children in her car on their journey home. AA was unwilling to allow him to drive when he had been taking drugs. Whilst AA drove along the A941, the respondent grabbed the steering wheel, leaned across AA and pulled up the handbrake, causing the car to veer off the road and roll over before coming to rest upright. Expert examination revealed that the respondent had pulled the handbrake up as far as it would go, which took a considerable amount of strength from a seated position.

The sentencing judge considered the offences to be despicable and noted the respondent’s extensive record of previous convictions. However, she considered the nature of charge 4 to be less serious than using a car as a weapon to assault someone, and that the respondent had endangered himself. She considered that the respondent had shown remorse, although the social work report disclosed that he had attempted to minimise the consequences of what he had done.

In its note of appeal, the Crown submitted that the judge underestimated the respondent’s culpability and gave insufficient weight to the presence of multiple victims, including two children. He scored highly on a domestic violence screening tool and presented at least a medium risk, and his actions in charges 1-3 were materially aggravating, as was his decision to throw away AA’s mobile phone after the accident.

Complete denial of responsibility

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Beckett said of the respondent’s culpability: “We consider that the respondent’s culpability was considerable, given his deliberate actions in a moving vehicle and their predictable consequences. Turning to harm, we note that injury was caused to the driver of the car and a child. The number of occupants at risk, and the fact that two of them were children of 9 and 3, are significant factors. There was considerable potential for serious, even fatal, injury to the occupants of the car and other road users.”

He added: “The respondent’s remarks about the offences to the reporting social worker contain no acceptance that he committed the crimes the jury convicted him of and are not remorse. The reporting social worker misunderstood the meaning of remorse in making the observations she did. The judge erred in treating them as if these were indications of genuine remorse when they were accompanied by complete denial of criminal responsibility.”

Considering what an appropriate sentence would be, Lord Beckett said: “The judge was correct in concluding that an extended sentence was necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the respondent. The length of the custodial term should not be affected by the fact that an extension period is also imposed. We consider that the appropriate custodial term on charge 4 was imprisonment for 10 years. To avoid disproportion, a cumulative extended sentence on all charges of 13 years with a custodial term of 11 years is appropriate.”

He concluded: “For the reasons the court explained in HM Advocate v O’Doherty (2022), the appropriate course in a case such as this where remand was interrupted is to identify a commencement date that allows for the period spent on remand. The simplest method in this case is to start from the original date of remand, 13 June 2023, and then count onwards 232 days (the period the respondent was on bail). Accordingly, the extended sentence is backdated to 1 February 2024 as parties agreed it should be.”

The appeal was accordingly allowed, with a new extended sentence imposed in the terms pronounced by the court. A non-harassment order imposed on 16 July 2025 was not subject to appeal and continued to have effect.