Daniel Haig v. His Majesty’s Advocate [2024] HCJAC 28

Note of appeal against sentence:- The appellant was indicted to the High Court on ten charges. He pled guilty to a charge of assault to injury (charge 1) and possession of a knife (charge 3) and was found guilty by the jury of a charge of murder (charge 8) following trial. Following the obtaining of a Criminal Justice Social Work Report the appellant was sentenced to 2 years and 3 months, discounted from 3 years on charges 1 and 3, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on charge 8, that being detention for life with a punishment part of 16 years selected made up of 15 years in relation to charge 8 and one year to reflect charges 1 and 3. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed it being contended that given the appellant was 16 years old at the time of the murder and 18 years at the time of sentence and the application of the Sentencing Young People guideline, the punishment part was excessive. In addition, it was contended that a further year for charges 1 and 3 and a cumulo headline sentence of 3 years for charges 1 and 3 was excessive. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that he had accepted responsibility and expressed remorse, that the stabbing was a single blow and that he had no previous convictions. Further, difficult background circumstances existed in his early life, including experience of domestic violence and substance abuse from an early age. Further, the appellant recognised to the author of the CJSWR the effects of his poor peer association and alcohol on his judgement and decision making. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that, having regard to the Sentencing of Young People guideline and it’s application to recent caselaw, the punishment part was excessive. Due to inadequacies in the terms of the initial CJSWR which was deficient and contradictory in various aspects the appeal court sought a supplementary CJSWR to ensure that a full picture of the appellant’s circumstances were placed before the court, including more information in relation to the extent of the Adverse Childhood Experiences which the appellant had been subjected to. Following receipt of the supplementary CJSWR the court considered that there was information within it which provided important context to the deterioration in the appellant’s behaviour culminating in the commission of the offences. In particular, the court noted that the appellant had been exposed to extreme domestic violence from an early age and had grown up in a family environment in which violence including the use of weapons was routine. The court also considered the issue of rehabilitation in the context of the Sentencing Young People guideline when fixing the punishment part. The court noted that the appellant appeared to have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. The court ultimately decided that the punishment part was excessive both in relation to the period apportioned to charge 8 and to the one year apportioned to charges 1 and 3. The court doubted whether charges 1 and 3 on their own merited a custodial sentence given the appellant’s age and being a first offender and a community based disposal may have been appropriate, however, given that was impossible the court quashed the sentences on charges 1 and 3 and substituted a concurrent one of detention for 6 months in cumulo. The court also quashed the punishment part of 16 years and noted that one year attributed to charges 1 and 3 was not justified. Further, the court considered that the remaining punishment part of 15 years was excessive and substituted a punishment part of 13 years which did not include any period in relation to charge 1 and 3.