Edmond Eccles v. Her Majesty's Advocate 2012 HCJAC 39

Criminal Note of Appeal Against Sentence:- On 6 June 2011, at a continued first diet at Dundee Sheriff Court, the appellant pled guilty to:- (1) a charge of assault with intent to rob; and (2) a charge of breach of the peace. Both of the offences were committed whilst the appellant was subject to two bail orders. On 27 June the sheriff sentenced the appellant to 29 months imprisonment (discounted from 33) on charge (1) and 18 months (discounted from 21) on charge (2). The sentences were made consecutive to each other and 3 months was attributable to the bail aggravations in respect of both charges. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the sentences should have been concurrent rather than consecutive. Here the court considered whether the sentences ought to have been imposed concurrently having particular regard to the time gap between the two offences and the different nature of the offences and the complainers. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that when the two sentences were looked at together, their cumulative effect was excessive, particularly having regard to that imposed for the breach of the peace. It was finally submitted that in light of Gemmell v HMA [2011] HCJAC 129, the sheriff's approach on discount was incorrect. Here the court considered whether the cumulative effect of the two sentences was excessive and whether the calculation by the sentencing sheriff whereby a discount could only apply to that part of the sentence which was not attributable to the protection of the public was correct in light of recent authority.