Man convicted of firearm murder in armed inter-family confrontation loses appeal against sentence

By Mitchell Skilling

Jordan Owens was convicted of murdering Jamie Lee on 8 July 2017 and was given a life sentence with a punishment part of 23 years. The appellant was also convicted of the attempted murder of Joseph Lee, for which he was sentenced concurrently to 12 years’ imprisonment, although he did not challenge the sentence imposed from the second charge 

The appeal was heard by the Lord Justice General, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Pentland and Lord Matthews. McConnachie QC and G Brown, solicitor advocate, appeared for the appellant and Cameron, solicitor advocate, for the Crown.

Smuggled out the country

The charges arose from an armed conflict between two family groups in Castlemilk which culminated in a confrontation near a playpark in July 2017. The appellant, who had come with a gun and a bulletproof vest, fired shots during the course of the confrontation, one of which killed 22-year-old Jamie Lee by damaging the femoral vessels in his left leg.

After the conflict, the appellant, then aged 23, was smuggled out of the country in the hidden compartment of a lorry and evaded authorities until his arrest on a European Arrest Warrant in Lisbon in 2019. Following trial in March 2022, the appellant was convicted of both charges. In a plea in mitigation the trial judge was told the appellant had consented to his extradition and had a 4-year-old child with whom he had bonded while on remand.

The trial judge reasoned that the appellant’s lifestyle, resourcefulness, and ability to escape the country confirmed he was not immature or susceptible to being led by others. While his criminal record was limited, there was an inference that the murder was premeditated and the result of a conflict he had chosen to escalate. He further pointed out that the deceased had a young child of his own who would have to grow up without a father, and the court had to do all it could to deter the use of guns.

Counsel for the appellant accepted that a significant punishment part required to be imposed, but argued it fell to be reduced in this case. The murder was not a pre-planned assassination, and the unusual cause of death inferred the appellant was wickedly reckless rather than harbouring an intention to kill. Nothing about the evidence of his lifestyle indicated a significant degree of maturity as expressed by the sentencing judge and the sentence was excessive in light of recent case authority including HMA v Morton Eadie and others (2022).

No realistic challenge

Lord Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court, said of the weight of the appellant’s age: “While there may be some force in the submission that the fact that the appellant drove a particular vehicle and that he had become a father at a young age did not necessarily point to his maturity, these were minor factors in the judge’s overall assessment, which included the highly significant features of the appellant’s arming himself with a gun, obtaining a bulletproof vest and thereafter having the wherewithal, albeit assisted, to leave the country, sustaining himself in the meantime.”

He continued: “The judge’s assessment that he was not a typical 23-year-old cannot realistically be challenged. He was entitled to attach little weight to the appellant’s age at the time of the offences and the circumstances were not redolent of immaturity. The contrary was the case.”

Assessing the circumstances of the murder, Lord Matthews said: “There is no suggestion of this being a targeted assassination and it may well be that the jury convicted on the basis of wicked recklessness. However, the courts have repeatedly made it clear that the use of a firearm to commit murder is something which must be deterred and which will be visited by severe penalties.”

He went on to say: “In fixing the punishment part the trial judge had regard to the sentence of 12 years he imposed in relation to the charge of attempted murder. It is a reasonable inference that had the murder charge stood alone it would have attracted a punishment part of the order of 18 years. Neither that, nor the punishment part which in fact was imposed can be said to be excessive.”

Lord Matthews concluded: “An analysis of the cases to which counsel referred leads inevitably to the conclusion that the trial judge selected a punishment part which is entirely in line with recent authority and with recent trends. It is of a lesser order than punishment parts imposed in gangland executions.”

The appeal against sentence was therefore refused.

Paedophile John Watt QC guilty of ‘rape and other vile sexual abuse’ of children jailed for 10 years

John Watt, at the High Court in Glasgow on 5 July 2022, you were convicted by the jury of five charges involving the sexual abuse of children. I will not repeat the detail of your offending at length, but, in summary, charges 1 and 2 involved the rape and other vile sexual abuse, on a single occasion, of your victim, who was taken to you for that very purpose. Her precise age at the time was not entirely clear on the evidence but on any view she was under 12 years of age. Charges 3 and 4 involved the sexual abuse of two young girls, then aged about 7 and 10 respectively, in their own beds. You had been invited into their home by their parents and those offences therefore involved a breach of trust. It is unclear whether that offending was opportunistic or also involved a degree of planning, given that you were often in the parents’ home. Charge 5 was the rape of a 10 year old boy who, on his evidence, which the jury must have accepted, had been left in your overnight care by his parents. As such that offence involved a gross breach of trust.

You appear for sentence as a 72-year-old man. At the time of the offending, which took place over about a 10-year period, or slightly longer, in the 1970s and 1980s, you would have been in your mid-twenties to late thirties. You have no previous convictions. After committing the offences, three of which were committed at a time when you held the office of advocate, you attained the rank of Queens Counsel. Indeed, in your role as an advocate depute you prosecuted the very type of offence of which you have now been convicted. As such you must be well aware of the gravity of such offences and the impact on victims.

In that regard, I have victim statements from the complainers in each of the first four charges, which speak eloquently of the lasting impact and harm your offending has had on each of them. In saying that, I acknowledge that it is apparent that not all of the troubles of the victim in charges 1 and 2 can be laid solely at your door, although your offending must have materially contributed to those troubles.

I have the benefit of a Criminal Justice Social Work Report on your circumstances. This reveals, as was confirmed by your senior counsel, that you maintain your denial of guilt. Perhaps that explains why you have not demonstrated any remorse, nor empathy towards your victims. You appear to be in good general health. Based at least partly on your age, you are presently assessed as presenting a low risk of reoffending.

I have taken into account all of the foregoing, in addition to what was said in mitigation on your behalf by your senior counsel, including what was said about your state of health and the effect of imprisonment on you.

In deciding on the appropriate sentence, my first task is to assess the gravity of the offending, which also involves consideration of the harm caused. The offences committed by you were of the utmost seriousness and depravity and were part of a course of conduct spanning more than 10 years. The offences are aggravated by involving an abuse of trust, and in the case of at least charges 1 and 2, some degree of planning. In each case, the offences have had a profound and lifelong effect on the victims. The principal sentencing aims in this case are punishment and deterrence.

In all the circumstances I have decided that the appropriate headline sentence is one of 11 years’ imprisonment. Prior to your remand on 5 July 2022, you had been held in custody, here and in the United States, for a total of 192 days. It is not known when or if you will be considered suitable for release by the Parole Board. However, I will take the period of remand into account by deducting one year from the headline sentence, resulting in a cumulo custodial sentence – that is, one which covers all five charges – of 10 years’ imprisonment. This will be backdated to 5 July 2022.

Finally in consequence of this sentence you will be subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for an indeterminate period.

Lord Glennie urged to step down from Dubai court

Last year he was sworn in as a judge of the Court of Appeal in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) courts before Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the absolute ruler of the emirate.

The DIFC courts govern civil and commercial disputes nationally, regionally and worldwide. 

Retired Irish barrister Bill Shipsey, who is also former chair of Amnesty International Ireland, called on Lord Glennie and other judges to sever their ties with the UAE.

“Having highly respected former common law judges, including Lord Glennie, serving on the DIFC courts no doubt enhances its reputation,” he said. “But the egregious human rights abuses committed by and on behalf of the Emirati regime should not be ignored.

“By their continued presence the judges are unavoidably contributing to the legitimisation of the regime. I would therefore respectfully urge Lord Glennie to resign.”

In recent weeks, two judges from Ireland have stepped down from their roles at the DIFC court. Frank Clarke, the country’s former chief justice, and Peter Kelly, former president of the High Court, resigned just days after being sworn in on July 27.

“I have decided to resign from the Court of Appeal of the DIFC since, as a private citizen, I do not want this controversy to disrupt my future time in retirement,” Mr Justice Kelly said.

Mr Shipsey urged others to follow their lead.

“The UAE does not have democratically elected institutions and citizens do not have the right to change their government or to form political parties,” he said.

He continued: “Emirati laws discriminate against women, migrants and LGBT individuals. Flogging and stoning, if rare, remain legal forms of judicial punishment and the UAE has retained and uses the death penalty, including for the ‘crime’ of apostasy.”

Victims express upset at crowdfund for man convicted of muirburn offences

Crofter Ian MacKenzie was convicted of the offences at Tain Sheriff Court in June this year. His actions resulted in the destruction of thousands of young trees.

Muirburn is the burning of old growth on a heather moor to encourage new growth for grazing, best practice for which is contained in the Muirburn Code.

A JustGiving crowdfunding campaign to raise “£6,000 to help pay legal fees” for Mr MacKenzie states: “Ian unintentionally fell foul of the law. After a long, costly legal fight, he was fined £1,500, although acquitted of most of the charges levelled against him.”

Mr MacKenzie was, however, found guilty of two of the three charges made against him.

He was found guilty of failing to provide sufficient staff and equipment to control and regulate burning operations that took place in February 2021, which resulted in extensive damage, and for which he was fined £750. He was also found guilty of making muirburn without due care and in doing so causing damage to eight acres of land.

He was found not guilty of failing to give nearby proprietors sufficient notice of his intention to make muirburn.

The crowdfund for him was started last month.

Clashmore and Raffin Grazings Committee told Scottish Legal News that the campaign to raise money for Mr MacKenzie was “misleading”. The committee said it was “concerned that many people supporting this fundraiser are not aware of the facts and the impact of this campaign on the victims and witnesses of his crimes”.

It added: “Mr MacKenzie’s actions resulted in the death of around 2,000 young trees, planted by the victims on their croft over a number of years, and the destruction of some of their fencing. He fled the scene of his out of control fire, which came within about five meters of the victims’ house, leaving terrified local crofters in Clashmore to deal with it as they waited for the emergency services to attend.

“Instead of accepting his crimes and pleading guilty, Mr MacKenzie forced a criminal court case to proceed, a matter that was outwith the control of the victims and witnesses. We accept that this is his right, but it resulted in additional distress for the victims and others from the local community who had to attend in court as witnesses.”

The committee concluded: “The campaign does not provide an explanation on why Mr MacKenzie cannot pay his legal fees. Although we clearly do not know the details of his financial circumstances, we know he has numerous crofts, property assets and plenty livestock. So, we are surprised that he and his friends are seeking donations from the public.

“The campaign itself has caused further upset and distress to the victims and witnesses living in the local community. We hope that in ensuring people have the facts they can make an informed choice on the matter as, for what it’s worth, in our view, there are many worthier causes in Assynt.”

Shapps proposes death by dangerous cycling offence

Prosecutors in England and Wales currently rely on the Offences Against The Person Act 1861, which deals with horse-drawn carriages. Motorists, however, can be sentenced to life in prison for causing death by dangerous driving.

Mr Shapps said that prosecutions of killer cyclists in England and Wales depends on “a legal relic of the horse-drawn era” or “manslaughter”, which for reasons unexplained he described as “a draconian option”.

He added: “We need the cycling equivalent of death by dangerous driving to close a gap in the law and impress on cyclists the real harm they can cause when speed is combined with lack of care.

“For example, traffic lights are there to regulate all traffic. But a selfish minority of cyclists appear to believe that they are somehow immune to red lights.

“We need to crack down on this disregard for road safety. Relatives of victims have waited too long for this straightforward measure.”

He added: “As we move into an era of sustained mass cycling, a thoroughly good thing, we must bring home to cyclists – too often themselves the victims of careless or reckless motoring – that the obligation to put safety first applies equally to every road user.

“There can be no exceptions.”

Solicitor Nick Freeman, known as Mr Loophole, said: “I’ve been petitioning the government to do this for a long time. There should be parity between all road users – motorists, cyclists, e-scooter users.

“How perverse is it that at the moment there is no speed limit for cyclists? You can have a 20mph limit but many fit cyclists can go faster than that – but there is nothing to stop or deter them.

“There’s also no drink-drive limit for cyclists. The law in relation to motorists is moving swiftly, but the law in relation to cyclists remains in the Dark Ages.”

Thomas Mitchell, senior solicitor at Cycle Law Scotland, told Scottish Legal News that cyclists who kill or cause serious injury would be prosecuted under culpable homicide or culpable and reckless conduct.

He added: “However this is very rare. There have been no cases reported of prosecutions of cyclists for culpable homicide in Scotland and the last prosecution of a cyclist for culpable and reckless conduct was in 1956.

“The Transport Secretary’s focus on this issue seems misguided considering that of the 346 pedestrians killed on Britain’s roads in 2020, only four were involved in a collision with a cyclist and, between 2015 and 2019, 99.3 per cent of pedestrian fatalities involved motor vehicles, while only 0.7 per cent involved bicycles.”

Mr Mitchell concluded: “In Scotland, the common law can be used to prosecute in cases where a cyclists has killed or seriously injured another but as these cases are so few and far between, we must question whether the law does need modernising in this area?”

Laura McKenna joins McKee Campbell Morrison’s new employment division

She joins from Morton Fraser, where she worked with a variety of private and public sector clients across a range of sectors.

Her experience includes negotiating and resolving complex disputes, representing clients at employment tribunal hearings and general advisory work on contracts, exits, redundancies and business transfers.

Ms McKenna said: “I’m looking forward to working with the team at MCM with a view to complementing their existing offering to clients. I am keen to get to know clients and their specific business objectives in order to offer tailored advice to help them achieve those objectives as efficiently as possible. This will be a key focus for the new division.”

Fraser Morrison, managing director and head of corporate at MCM, said: “It’s fantastic to have Laura on board. We are delighted to be in a position to launch this new offering and Laura’s experience in the employment sector will add huge value to the excellent service we already offer to our clients.

“We’ve built up a strong client portfolio in the last year and we know there’s a real and growing need for specialist employment law advice, so I’m certain Laura’s appointment will be well received by our existing clients. I look forward to watching the division strengthen and grow in the coming months and years.”

England: Raab continues attack on judicial review

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) paper details changes that would limit the accountability of ministers in judicial reviews.

The MoJ document states: “You (DPM [deputy prime minister]) have indicated that you are minded to consult on further reforms to judicial review”.

It then suggests a change “subject to your initial policy steers and the outcome of any consultation” – which experts told The Guardian would raise the bar for bringing a judicial review.

Charlie Whelton, policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, said: “This leaked document suggests that the government plans to make it even harder for people to challenge them and make themselves even less accountable to the public.

“Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen an unprecedented assault on our legal rights, including in the Judicial Review and Courts Act and through ongoing proposals to scrap the Human Rights Act. The government is determined to make it as difficult as possible to take them to court and hold them accountable for unlawful actions.

“Whether by putting up more barriers to bringing cases, overturning judgments they don’t like or blocking off more and more actions from challenge, the government’s attempts to avoid accountability set a very dangerous precedent for all future governments of all stripes.”

The document refers to altering cost rules on “standing”, which requires the claimant to have “sufficient interest” in order to bring a case. An increase in the cost burden may be intended to deter potential applicants, such as NGOs.

Jolyon Maugham QC, the director of the Good Law Project, said: “We already have laws to prevent cases that lack merit. And the efficacy of judicial review as a tool for inhibiting the law-breaking of ministers is already under grave pressure.

“These measures are designed to repel the tiny rump of cases that can nevertheless succeed. What Raab seems to want is a world in which the government is above the law.”

Opinion: Environmental law at a ‘crucial juncture’

Three environmental law topics are in a particular state of flux: climate change litigation, the protection of wildlife, and housing law relating to short-term lets.

Globally, individuals and activists are increasingly turning to national and international courts to hold governments and corporations to account in relation to climate change.

In Scotland, Greenpeace attempted to challenge the decision to exploit the Vorlich oil field in Greenpeace Ltd v The Advocate General. In October 2021, the Court of Session refused the appeal in terms of both procedural issues raised, and the substantive issue as to whether an environmental impact assessment should consider the effect of the consumption of oil and gas by the end user. The court found this latter issue is essentially political and not legal.

More recently, in Friends of the Earth (and Others) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the High Court in England and Wales found the UK government’s Net Zero Strategy does not meet the government’s obligations under the Climate Change Act to produce policies that show how the UK’s legally-binding carbon budgets will be met.

This case may pave the way for UK courts to take a more active role in assessing whether the government is meeting its legal obligations under climate change legislation. Legal challenges are an increasingly important tool for people and organisations looking to effect policy change or seek transparency in relation to the climate crisis. Group proceedings, permitted in the Court of Session since 2020, may also offer significant opportunities in relation to climate change litigation.

The Protection of Wildlife

The protection of wildlife has also been the subject of both legal challenges and legislation in Scotland. In Trees for Life v NatureScot, the Court of Session considered the licensing scheme which regulates the culling of beavers, a European Protected Species since 2019. The court found NatureScot had issued licences allowing beavers to be culled unlawfully, as it failed to give its reasons in writing.

Additionally, the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act came into force in November 2020, increasing maximum penalties for the most serious animal welfare and wildlife crimes to five years imprisonment and unlimited fines. The Act also reclassifies mountain hares as endangered animals, which will result in increased legal protection.

These developments reveal the importance of wildlife protection to both animal welfare organisations and the Scottish government, as well as the crucial role of legal mechanisms in securing this protection.

Short-Term Lets: Regulation and the Built Environment

Under new regulations, local authorities have until October 1, 2022 to establish licensing schemes for short-term lets. Once these are established, existing hosts have until April 1, 2023 to apply for a licence. Significantly, after October 1, 2022, new hosts will need to have a licence to take bookings or receive guests.

To apply for a licence, hosts will need to show they meet certain mandatory conditions, and additional conditions imposed by the licensing authority. Also, local authorities will be able to create “short-term let control areas”, requiring hosts to apply for planning permission before applying for a licence. If a licence application is refused, hosts will be able to appeal by summary application to the Sheriff Court within 28 days of the decision.

These regulations mark a significant change to the regulation of short-term lets in Scotland, creating conditions that will apply across the country as well as enabling local authorities to impose additional conditions and designate specific control areas. The decisions of local licensing authorities will have an impact on the ability of hosts and operators to offer holiday lets, and in some cases legal action may be necessary to challenge licensing decisions.

In conclusion, this is a crucial moment for the development of environmental law in Scotland, as multiple pressures are brought to bear on climate targets, wildlife protection, and the urban landscape.

Lauren Smith is an associate and Lindsay McCosh a trainee solicitor at Balfour and Manson. This article first appeared in The Scotsman.

Serial abuser jailed for 13 years

Ian Ramsay, a farmhand from Kelso in the Borders, subjected partners and ex-partners to serious sexual attacks and violence.

He also stalked other women with whom he had never been in a relationship. He targeted them with terrifying and unwanted approaches after bumping into them at local venues.

Ramsay, 49, was found guilty on 16 charges, include five rapes, at the High Court in Edinburgh in May.

The jury heard how Ramsay – also known by the first name Ewart – conducted a long campaign of abusing women, using blackmail, threats, stalking and violence. Some victims were followed by Ramsay and bombarded with messages, phone calls and gifts.

Others were blackmailed with threats of revealing personal photos. Two victims were raped while they slept, several were physically and sexually assaulted. Ramsay was convicted of offences against nine women between 2014 and 2020. Most assaults took place in towns near his home in the Borders.

Returning to court for sentencing on Friday, Ramsay was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment and a three-year extended sentence. He was further made subject to a 20-year non-harassment order banning him from contacting or approaching his victims – or attempting to do so – and he was added to the sex offenders register.

Procurator fiscal for High Court sexual offences, Fraser Gibson, said: “Ian Ramsay carried out appalling offences against women over the course of many years. His criminal behaviour was persistent and wicked but has been brought to an end by the courage of his victims in speaking out.

“We welcome today’s sentence and hope that it provides some small comfort for the women he terrorised. The Crown is committed to the fair and effective prosecution of sexual offences and I would encourage anyone who has been the victim of similar offending to come forward and seek support.”

Quote of the day

The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.

Joseph Conrad, ‘Under Western Eyes’ (1911)

And finally… tone-deaf

Hero Alom, from Bangaldesh, has almost two million followers on Facebook and nearly 1.5 million subscribers on YouTube.

Evidently, however, not everyone is a fan of his painfully bad singing — with the social media star interrogated by police last month.

According to reports, Alom was detained for eight hours and warned to stop “distorting” classic songs by national treasures Rabindranath Tagore and Kazi Nazrul Islam.

Writing in Bangaldeshi newspaper The Daily Star, US academic Nadine Shaanta Murshi said: “The state actors who are responsible for keeping communities safe (with guns, no less) are now at the helm of keeping us safe from ostensibly badly sung songs by those we hold in high regard – although that, too, is a matter of taste and preference.

“In an era wherein anyone can produce content, where the markets decide what is good and what is not, as demonstrated by their monetary and click commitments, what does it mean to have the police come down on a single content producer simply because it grates on hegemonic middle-class sensibilities?”

Advantages of Custom Legal Case Management Software

In 2022 law firm leaders are choosing customisable legal software because of its high ease of use and automation levels, which is resulting in a marked improvement in employee productivity and business efficiency.

In this article Grant Yuill, Denovo’s head of marketing, sheds light on the key advantages, scalability and flexibility which allows their custom software, CaseLoad, to adapt to a law firms growing business needs over time.

Read more – Law Firm Case Management Software