BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >> Jordan v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2006] ScotHC HCJAC_53 (06 June 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2006/HCJAC_53.html
Cite as: [2006] ScotHC HCJAC_53, [2006] HCJAC 53

[New search] [Help]

APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY

Lord Johnston

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

[2006] HCJAC 53

XC141/06

OPINION OF THE COURT

delivered by LORD JOHNSTON

in

NOTE OF APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE

by

JASON ALEXANDER JORDAN

Appellant;

against

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

Respondent:

_______

Act: G. Martin, Solicitor Advocate; Martin, Johnston & Socha, Dunfermline

Alt: M. Hughes, A.D.; Crown Agent

6 June 2006

[1] The appellant pled guilty on 2 March 2006 at the High Court in Kilmarnock to a charge of contravening the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982 section 52(1)(a). The charge related to pornographic material involving children.

[2] The trial judge imposed an extended sentence of 8 years and 8 months, backdated to 8 February 2006. The custodial part of that sentence was fixed at 4 years and 8 months and the extension period at 4 years.

[3] Mr. Martin, on behalf of the appellant, based his submissions on the provisions of subsection (5) of section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which he submitted placed an absolute ban on any court involvement in an extended sentence for a statutory offence which exceeded the maximum term of imprisonment permitted by the statute creating the statutory offence in question.

[4] In this case the sentence actually imposed by the sentencing judge was a period of 8 years and 8 months, backdated to 8 February 2006. Such a sentence plainly falls within the maximum sentence of 10 years, which the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 permits for a contravention of section 52(1)(A).

[5] Mr. Martin submitted that it was clear the sentencing judge had started the discounting process from a total figure of 11 years, if the custodial part and the extension period she mentioned were added together. It was argued this reasoning rendered incompetent the sentence she had actually imposed. .

[6] With that we do not agree. Whatever may have been the reasoning of the sentencing judge, in the ultimate result the sentence she imposed did not contravene the provisions of section 210A(5) of the 1995 Act.

[7] For these reasons the appeal is refused.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2006/HCJAC_53.html