Tencho Hristov Andonov, Mohammed Asam Siddique & Her Majesty's Advocate v. Her Majesty's Advocate and Deyan Nikolov [2013] HCJAC 27

Criminal Note of Appeal Against Sentence:- On 29 February 2012 at the High Court in Edinburgh the appellants Andonov and Siddique and the respondent Nikolov were found guilty of a charge of murder. The appellant Andonov was also found guilty of a charge of attempted murder. The sentencing judge sentenced the first named appellant to life imprisonment and fixed the punishment part at 29 years. In respect of the attempted murder charge, the first named appellant was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. These periods were ordered to run concurrently and were backdated to date from 2 November 2010. Siddique was sentenced in respect of the murder charge to life imprisonment with a punishment part of 25 years backdated to 9 December 2010. The respondent, Nikolov, in respect of the charge of murder was sentenced to life imprisonment with a punishment part of 18 years backdated to 9 December 2010. The evidence at the trial pointed to Andonov being the gunman, Siddique being the driving force behind the murder (of his brother) and Nikolov being the link or conduit between the two. The first and second named appellant appealed against the punishment parts imposed by the sentencing judge in their cases. It was submitted on behalf of the first appellant that a punishment part of 29 years was to be regarded as excessive in the circumstances, particularly in light of him being a foreign national and a first offender. It was submitted on behalf of the second appellant that the punishment part of 25 years imposed in his case was excessive in the circumstances, particularly in light of the fact that he had not himself pulled the trigger on the gun, was a first offender, lived a respectable and responsible life prior to this offending, having responsibility for the care of his extended family and he had a full work record. Here the court considered whether the sentences were excessive. In addition, the Crown appealed against the punishment part of 18 years which was fixed in respect of the respondent Nikolov as being unduly lenient and the court here considered the circumstances as they related to him in considering whether a higher sentence ought to be imposed given the nature of the pre-meditated contract killing.