His Majesty’s Advocate v. E.K. [2025] HCJAC 10

Crown appeal against sentence:- On 10 September 2024, at Glasgow High Court, the respondent pled guilty under the accelerated procedure to two charges committed when he was aged 15:- (1) a charge of assault to injury with the use of a knife; and (2) a charge of culpable homicide from a single punch causing a man of 70 to fall, his head striking the ground resulting in his death. Following the obtaining of a Criminal Justice Social Work Report the sentencing judge imposed an extended sentence of 6 years and 4 months comprising of a custodial element of 3 years and 4 months detention and an extension period of 3 years. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed being contended that (a) the extended sentence in the form imposed was incompetent; and (b) the sentence was unduly lenient. On behalf of the Crown it was submitted that in terms of section 201 A(1)(a)(ii) of the 1995 Act with the sentence imposed for a violent offence being less than a custodial term of 4 years the sentence was incompetent. It was submitted that given the risk of harm highlighted in the CJSWR an extended sentence was appropriate and a custodial term of more than 4 years ought to be imposed. It was further submitted that the sentence imposed failed to adequately punish the respondent and insufficient weight had been attached to the nature of the offence including the unprovoked nature of the two offences with the respondent leaving home in possession of a knife and confronting the complainer in charge 1 and in relation to charge 2 the vulnerability of the deceased and the respondent’s state of intoxication when he punched and killed him. Having regard to other ‘single punch’ homicide cases referred to, including NRL v HMA [2025] HCJAC 4, the sentence imposed fell below the range reasonably expected. On behalf of the respondent it was accepted that the sentence imposed was incompetent and, in the event that the court did conclude, having regard to the terms of the CJSWR that an extended sentence was necessary, it should be no longer than necessary, given his progress and the  remorse and insight into the consequences of what he had done in relation to charge 2. It was further submitted that a number of aggravating features present in NRL, which was relied upon by the Crown in their submissions, were absent from the present case. In relation to the issue of discount, it was submitted that the plea had a significant utilitarian benefit and allowance should be made for the plea. Here the court allowed the appeal. The court considered the aggravating features present in both charges against the age of the respondent and the progress he has made and considered that, whilst the sentence imposed was incompetent, it did not consider that the sentencing judge erred in his selection of the individual sentences, namely 2 years on charge 1 and 4 years on charge 2 (which the sentencing judge modified to a cumulo headline sentence of 5 years detention before discounting it by a third). The court quashed the incompetent sentence and imposed an extended sentence of 7 years with a custodial term of 4 years detention and an extension period of 3 years which sentence was discounted from a headline extended sentence of 8 years and 6 months with a custodial term of detention for 5 years and 6 months on account of the plea of guilty (66 months reduced to 48 months). The court considered that, whilst the plea had been tendered under the accelerated procedure it was tendered four months after first appearance, and did not merit a discount of a third.