Abstract
The author discusses the recent Crown appeals against sentence in HM Advocate v MG [2023] HCJAC 3; 2023 J.C. 68; 2023 S.L.T. 232; 2023 S.C.C.R. 97 , and HM Advocate v Palfreman (Andrew) [2023] HCJAC 10; 2023 J.C. 137; 2023 S.L.T. 513; 2023 S.C.C.R. 161. Certain aspects of the unconventional sentencing methodologies employed by the trial judges are examined which, in both cases, involved the judges taking a staged, or tiered, approach towards imposing sentence on the respondents. The difficulties with such staged approaches to sentencing are considered by reference to sentencing law and practice in New Zealand and Australia, as well as the Scottish Sentencing Council’s recent guideline on The Sentencing Process.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 227-237 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Scots Law Times |
| Volume | 2023 |
| Issue number | 40 |
| Early online date | 15 Dec 2023 |
| Publication status | Published - 15 Dec 2023 |
Keywords
- Australia
- comparative law
- deterrence
- life imprisonment
- New Zealand
- offensive weapons
- punishment
- rape
- Scotland
- Scottish Sentencing Council
- sentencing guidelines
- undue leniency