"(2) on 22 February 2005 at Castle Terrace, Aberdeen, Denside of Catterline or elsewhere, whilst within motor car registered number P595 FSR, you did assault Susan Mary Third ... and did seize her by the neck, place your hands around her neck and compress same, place a ligature and compact disc carrier case or similar item against her neck and compress same, and did kill her".

The Crown accepted the respondent's plea of guilty to this charge under substitution of the word "kill" for the word "murder" in the last line, and his pleas of not guilty to three other charges in the indictment. After sundry procedure to obtain the reports referred to below, on 3 August 2006 the sentencing judge imposed an extended sentence of imprisonment for a period of nine years, comprising a custodial term of six years and an extension period of three years, backdated to commence from 28 February 2005. He stated that were it not for the timing of the plea the custodial term would have been one of eight years. The Crown now invite us to hold that this sentence was unduly lenient, in terms of section 108 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act").

"History of the accused

The accused Joseph Harrison is 28 years old. His date of birth is 18 January 1977. At the time of the incident under consideration he was employed as a farm worker. He is single but has a partner and a young child. The accused has two children as a result of a previous relationship.

The accused has previous convictions as libelled in the schedule tendered.

History of the case

The accused appeared on petition at Aberdeen Sheriff Court on 28 February 2005. Judicial examination was conducted. Bail was not applied for and he was remanded in custody.

On 8 March 2005 the accused appeared on a new petition which libelled additional charges. He made no plea nor declaration and was fully committed. He was remanded in custody.

Narrative of the facts

At about 7.05 p.m. on Sunday 26 February 2005, the accused's girlfriend, Sophie Stevenson, arrived home at the accused's flat in Brechin and found that the front door was locked. The porch light and TV were on. This was unusual. On a sideboard in the kitchen, Ms Stevenson found a note in the accused's handwriting.

It read,

'So sorry, I wished we lived far away from here. Please come to C me in jail as I love you and baby. Please 4give me and don't 4get me. Yours 4ever, Joe.'

Ms Stevenson was worried and contacted the accused's sister, Patricia Harrison. Ms Stevenson continually attempted to contact the accused. She left 50 text messages on his mobile phone between that moment and 10 a.m. on Sunday 27 February 2005.

At about 7.30 p.m. on Saturday, 26 February 2005, the accused arrived at the house of Joanna Bonner in Inverbervie. Ms Bonner was a friend of the accused. The accused began to talk about the situation with his former partner and his children. Ms Bonner had a visitor at the time and was surprised to see the accused in the circumstances. She noticed that the accused looked upset and that his eyes were bloodshot. She told the accused that she had a visitor and she closed the door. However, when she looked out of her window, she saw the accused walking on the pavement in front of her house and she felt sorry for him. She opened the door and allowed the accused into her home.

Inside, the accused told Ms Bonner that he wanted to die. The accused was looking at himself in the mirror and talking to himself. There were tears coming down his face. Ms Bonner asked the accused if he had taken any drugs. The accused replied that he had not.

At one point Ms Bonner gave the accused a hug to console him. He kissed her on the lips and put his hand on her stomach. He pushed her gently backwards onto the bed. Ms Bonner formed the impression that the accused wanted to have sex with her, but she said to him that that could not happen. The accused again became emotional and started to cry. The accused told Ms Bonner that he had come to say goodbye before he killed himself. Ms Bonner was sufficiently concerned for the accused that she called for an ambulance. The accused was unhappy that Ms Bonner had called an ambulance. Ms Bonner locked the accused inside her house so that he could not escape medical attention. The accused became increasingly agitated and said that he wanted to go away and kill himself.

Ambulance staff arrived about 15 to 20 minutes later. The accused persuaded them that there was nothing wrong with him. He said that he had been feigning with Ms Bonner in order to get her to let him into her house. The accused told the paramedics that he had not taken alcohol nor drugs. The paramedics had no reason to disbelieve him. The accused declined the paramedics' offer of further medical assistance. Police constables arrived. They were informed by the paramedics that the accused appeared fit and well and that they had no concerns for his wellbeing. The accused provided full details to the PCs. He told them that he lived in Brechin with his pregnant girlfriend. He told them that he was having problems with his former partner on the issue of access to his children. The accused was upset when talking about this and he said that he was taking legal advice on the matter. The accused told the PCs he was going to return home to Brechin. He said that he owned a red Nissan Almera motor car. He was allowed to leave.

After leaving, the accused drove to Aberdeen. At approximately 11.50 p.m., he was involved in an altercation with Deborah Ann Henderson or Blackburn. This happened as Ms Blackburn was driving along New Pier Road, Aberdeen, and Pocra Quay, Aberdeen. Ms Blackburn's car was met by the accused's red Nissan Almera coming round the corner from Pocra Quay into New Pier Road being driven '... like a bat out of hell'. There was only space for single line traffic to pass due to the cars parked on either side of New Pier Road. Ms Blackburn assumed that the accused would reverse and let her pass through, since he had just entered New Pier Road and she was far along the lines of parked cars.

The accused was gesticulating to Ms Blackburn and motioning that she was to reverse. The accused got out of his car and came up to Ms Blackburn's driver door window. Ms Blackburn rolled her window down. The accused was shouting, 'I can't fucking hear you.' He was also shouting, repeatedly, 'Reverse the fucking car.' Ms Blackburn describes the accused as being like, '... a man possessed, if he wasn't on drugs he should have been on medication'. She said that the accused was,

'... almost nose to nose with me. He never blinked at any stage and his pupils were really big. I don't recall there being any smell of alcohol on his breath. Although I was trying to speak, the man was just away with the fairies.'

As Ms Blackburn reversed up the street, the accused had his car bumper against hers as if to force her to reverse. Ms Blackburn was having difficulty in completing such a difficult manoeuvre. She stopped and telephoned her husband, pointing to the accused's registration plate in an attempt to suggest that she was telephoning the police. The accused then reversed his car, accordingly to Ms Blackburn, '... like a bat out of hell'. The accused then drove off along Pocra Quay towards the Harbour. Ms Blackburn had noted the accused's registration number. Ms Blackburn was very frightened and upset as a result of this incident. The accused denied any knowledge of the incident.

At about 12.02 a.m. on Sunday 27 February 2005 the accused was seen on CCTV camera to drive his car into Castle Street in Aberdeen. He parked and was seen to be accompanied by the deceased. The deceased worked as a prostitute in Aberdeen. The accused was accompanied by the deceased to the Lloyds TSB cash machine on Castlegate. The accused withdrew £50. The accused and the deceased returned to the accused's car. The accused then drove into Castle Terrace, Aberdeen.

At about 12.55 a.m. on 27 February 2005, Ms Sharon Smith was walking on Castle Terrace, Aberdeen. The accused's red Nissan Almera was deliberately driven at her as she crossed the road. She managed to hide behind a parked car. The accused then did a three point turn and drove back towards her. The accused's car mounted the pavement and drove towards her. At the last minute the accused swerved onto the roadway and drove off towards the Beach Boulevard roundabout.

At some time between 12.02 a.m. and 12.55 a.m. the accused strangled the deceased in his car in Aberdeen city centre. The accused then put the body of the deceased into his car boot. The accused's car was then seen on CCTV cameras on various streets in Aberdeen, eventually driving south out of Aberdeen. The final CCTV footage shows the accused stopping his car and buying petrol at a Shell garage on Wellington Road to the south of Aberdeen city centre.

At about 1.25 a.m. on Sunday 27 February 2005, police officers had arranged a roadblock on the A90 Aberdeen to Dundee road at Hillhead of Glasslaw, approximately one mile south of the A92 interchange at Stonehaven. This was on account of a fatal road accident. It had nothing to do with the accused. All traffic was to be diverted onto the southbound A92. A police car was placed across the southbound carriageway.

The police officers became aware of a car coming towards them at speed as they were placing cones across the southbound carriageway of the A90. The constables signalled to the driver to slow down with the intention of diverting the car onto the southbound A92. The car was estimated to be travelling at about 70 miles per hour. The car failed to stop and continued down the A90. The car was a red Nissan Almera and the driver appeared to be alone in the car. The driver was the accused and the red Nissan Almera was his car.

At about 7.30 a.m. on Sunday 27 February 2005, a man called Walter Chapman looked out of his bedroom window at Denside House, Catterline. He immediately noticed a red car with its boot up. The red car was stopped in a field nearby. This was highly unusual and immediately noticeable. Mr Chapman could see something lying in front of the car. He used his binoculars but still could not determine what was lying in front of the car. Mr Chapman decided to go and have a look. He discovered the body of the deceased young lady in front of the red car in the field, close to the front passenger side wheel. He checked the deceased's body for a pulse. The body of the deceased was cold to the touch. The deceased's body was only partially clothed. The deceased's body had a top which was up above her breasts. The deceased's body was naked from the breasts down apart from a pair of black boots. Mr Chapman immediately arranged for his wife to contact the police.

At about 10.10 a.m. on the same day, Sophie Stevenson, the accused's partner, received a telephone call from the accused. The accused told her that he was in St. Cyrus and that he had walked along the coastline all night from Aberdeen. He told her that he had done something really bad and that the police would have to be involved. Ms Stevenson immediately contacted the accused's sister, Patricia Harrison. Ms Harrison immediately arranged for her partner, James Ogilvie, to go and pick the accused up in his car. Mr Ogilvie drove to St. Cyrus but could not find the accused. The accused made a second telephone call to Ms Stevenson. He said that he was near to Hillside. Ms Stevenson told the accused that Mr Ogilvie was on his way to pick him up. She asked the accused what was the bad thing that he had done. The accused replied, 'I've killed somebody.'

Mr Ogilvie found the accused at a bus shelter at Hillside. He immediately noticed that the accused's clothes were in a mess. There was mud on the accused's trousers, which were torn at the knee. The accused said to Mr Ogilvie, 'I've really done it this time. I've killed somebody.' Mr Ogilvie asked the accused what he meant. The accused replied, 'I've killed a prostitute.'

During the journey Mr Ogilvie continued his conversation with the accused. The accused appeared to be rambling. He told Mr Ogilvie that there had been a road block outside Aberdeen. He said, 'I've passed one police car and then there was another one. I drove straight through the middle of it'. Mr Ogilvie asked the accused where his own car was. The accused said, 'It's in a field outside Aberdeen'. Mr Ogilvie then asked where the female was. The accused replied, 'She's lying beside the car. I've stripped the clothes off her.' Mr Ogilvie took the accused to the accused's home where Ms Stevenson was waiting. The accused repeated the details he had told Mr Ogilvie to Ms Stevenson. Ms Stevenson immediately telephoned the police.

Police officers came to the accused's home. Ms Stevenson told them what the accused had said to her. The accused agreed voluntarily to be taken to Stonehaven police station for interview. The accused was cautioned en route in the police car. The accused was medically examined and deemed fit to be interviewed.

At 5.45 p.m. on Sunday 27 February 2005 the accused was interviewed under tape recorded conditions, having been cautioned. When asked what he could tell the police about the deceased's death, the accused replied, 'I strangled her.'

The accused also said

'I went to my mum's, that's in Brechin. My girlfriend was working. Mum was going on about the two kids that I don't see. When she speaks about them it gets me wound up, trying to go through the courts to get access, em so I left there and wisnae in a very good frame of mind after that. I kept trying to tell her I would get it sorted. She kept going on about it. I went and got some drink after that. I went to Inverbervie; I went to see a friend who I hadn't seen for a long time. She has a history sort of mental, she called the paramedics and two police officers came. I said to them I would be all right. Two police officers said they would follow me to Brechin, make sure I got there. Got in the car, that got me thinking, girlfriend would be finished work and be upset and everything. Just took off in the car and ended up in Aberdeen. I don't know Aberdeen very well. Went up by the Beach Boulevard as I used to go there when I was younger tenpin bowling and stuff like that, and from there you can go down to the docks. I stopped at the dock, I was a bit hysterical and that. This lassie came over to the car window and she got in. I was quite hysterical at the time she got in the car with me. There after while said she wanted money cause she had been in the car. I felt like I was trying to speak to her, tell her problems and that said she wanted money off me. So I went to the bank and took out fifty pounds and got back in the car and she took the whole fifty pound off me and I just snapped.'

The accused was asked what then happened. He replied, 'I got in the car with the money, she just took it and I strangled her.' The accused was asked what he strangled her with. He replied,

'Hands and then I don't remember all the events, came out of Aberdeen. There was like a police car across the road. I was completely hysterical. Anyway, I got past, went down some road, don't have a clue where. Before I reached the police car I see she must have had some things. I threw them out of the car, a bag, phone kept on ringing, threw it out of the window as well. Stopped the car down in a field, whatever reason I don't know, took her clothes off and laid her down next to the car and I just kept on walking down the coast. Got to St. Cyrus and phoned for a taxi at the phone box at St. Cyrus. He said he would just be coming and never came. From there walked to Hillside, phoned by girlfriend and told her what I'd done. My sister's boyfriend had apparently been out looking for me. He picked me up at Hillside, got back to Brechin, got my girlfriend to phone the police and told them what I had done'.

The accused was asked if he had strangled the deceased in the car or outside. He replied, 'In the car.' He went on to say that he had used his hands and that the deceased had initially struggled with him. He said that he had put the deceased's body in the boot. When asked, the accused denied having sexual contact with the deceased. It was put to the accused that there appeared to be marks on the deceased's neck indicative of some sort of implement or ligature, the accused replied, 'The box. The CD box. I used the CD box, the face of the CD box.'

The accused was formally cautioned and arrested on suspicion of murder.

Pathology

Post Mortem examination of the deceased's body was carried out by Doctors Saddler and Booth. They concluded that the deceased died as a result of strangulation. There were classic signs of strangulation, such as petechiae evident over the deceased's eyelids, inside the lips and behind the ears. The most significant injuries were to the front of the deceased's neck from the level of the chin above to the collar bones below. There was diffuse pink bruising to the upper front of the deceased's neck. Within this area there were several overlapping horizontally aligned ligature marks, typically up to 110 millimetres in length and 2 to 3 millimetres in width.

On the right side of the deceased's upper neck there were three superficial discontinuous linear scratch type abrasions. There were two larger abrasions on the under surface of the deceased's chin at the mid line and to the left side. There was extensive bruising over the left collarbone. Beneath the skin at the front of the deceased's neck there was extensive haemorrhage within the muscles and particularly severe bruising along the under surface of the lower jaw. There was extensive bruising inside both lips and laceration of the lower lip most likely where it had been forcibly pressed against the deceased's front teeth.

The pathologists' opinion was the death occurred as a result of strangulation most likely caused by throttling with the hands and the application of some form of ligature across the front of the deceased's neck. When asked specifically whether the accused's CD carrier, which they were shown, could have caused those injuries, both pathologists thought that the horizontally aligned marks on the deceased's neck were more likely to have been caused by the application of a ligature such as a thin cord.

There were dried abrasions to both of the deceased's knees, the right hip bone and upper back area. There was no associated underlying bruising and these injuries were thought to have occurred after the deceased had died. These injuries were thought to be consistent with the deceased's body having been removed from the accused's car boot and movement thereafter.

There was no evidence of injury to the deceased's vulva or vagina to suggest forcible penetration. However, there was a small tear to the deceased's anal margin. The pathologists are of the view that this injury occurred after death, due to the absence of associated bruising.

They both expressed a conclusion, with 70% certainty, which points towards the accused having had sexual contact with the deceased post mortem. This falls to be considered along with the forensic evidence to the effect that the body of the deceased had been placed on the bonnet of the accused's car at the locus where it was found.

Forensic Analysis

Forensic scientists' examination, based upon DNA analysis, concluded that there had been some form of sexual contact between the accused and the deceased. The deceased's DNA type was detected on the left front of the accused's boxer shorts.

Examination of the accused's car was carried out. The forensic scientists concluded, inter alia, that the muddy, semi-clothed body of the deceased had been placed over the bonnet of the accused's car, with the head lying towards the windscreen washer jets. The deceased's body may have then slid from that position to the ground, explaining the position in which the deceased's body was found."

"Joseph Harrison, you pled guilty to the culpable homicide of Susan Third.

That plea was offered and accepted on the basis of diminished responsibility. The evidence which I heard when the case first came before me last October in Aberdeen was to the effect that you were suffering from mental disorder and at the time of the crime were psychotic.

Following a period of examination and treatment in the State Hospital, it was concluded by the doctor treating you that by June of this year you were no longer suffering from mental disorder.

In that situation I am able now to pass sentence in the normal way, but I must make it plain that I am passing sentence today for the crime to which you pled guilty and on the basis of diminished responsibility, as was accepted by the Crown last October.

The crime of culpable homicide is, of course, always a very serious matter, because someone has been killed. The degree of culpability, however, can vary enormously from one case to another, depending on all the circumstances.

Nothing that I can do, of course, can bring Susan Third back to life. Her death is a tragedy for all concerned, particularly her family and friends. And their sense of loss is a continuing one, which I fully recognise. The sentence that I pass must not be seen as in any way putting some kind of value on her life. What I have to do is to pass a sentence which is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, having regard of course to what happened but also to your situation at the time. The sentence must also be consistent with sentences in other cases of this kind which have been approved by the Court of Appeal.

In this case I have taken full account of the circumstances in which this offence occurred insofar as they are known. Insofar as I was also given background information, I take account of it for the purpose of filling in the background and giving me a fuller picture of this very unusual case. However, insofar as there was any suggestion that you might have committed other criminal conduct at or about this time, that can form no part of the matter for which I am passing sentence. I can only pass sentence for the offence to which you pled guilty.

You have four previous convictions but, although there was one for assault on indictment, they are relatively minor compared with this offence and none of them resulted in a custodial sentence.

I have, of course, carefully considered the medical evidence and reports which have been provided and I have carefully considered the social enquiry report. I have also taken into account all that Mrs Richards has said on your behalf both today and on the previous occasions when the case called before me. I also take into account the fact that you accepted responsibility for what you did and pled guilty to this offence. That saved the public expense of a trial and further trauma for the family and friends of the deceased. For that the law provides that you are entitled to a discount.

Having regard to what is said in the social enquiry report, it seems to me that an extended sentence would be appropriate. That is to protect the public from any risk that you may present but it is also meant to be of benefit to you when you are eventually released from custody.

Having regard to all the circumstances in this difficult and anxious case I sentence you to an extended sentence of nine years imprisonment. The custodial part of that sentence will be six years and the extension part three years.

If you had not pled guilty, the custodial part would have been eight years, which would have made a total of eleven years.

The sentence will take effect from 28 February 2005 to take account of the period you have already spent in custody in relation to this matter."

"5. The only explanation before the court for the offence was [the respondent's] mental state at the time of the offence. No full risk assessment was obtained, but the social enquiry report assessed him as being at medium risk of re-offending heightened by an absence of any understanding on his part of why he committed the crime. His risk of causing harm to others if he re-offended was assessed as high, but the respondent had difficulty in accepting this. He had previously been convicted of an offence involving domestic violence, and continued to show little insight into the causes of his violent behaviour.

6. The psychiatric report of 26 June 2006 concludes that 'it is difficult to

give any informed opinion as to the risk of further serious offending'. It envisages the possibility, albeit unlikely, that the respondent's mental state may deteriorate if he returns to prison.

7. In all the circumstances the sentence imposed does not reflect the

gravity of the offence and does not provide sufficient protection for members of the public."

In his report to this court, the sentencing judge comments on these grounds of appeal. He states that this was a case of culpable homicide on the basis of diminished responsibility, and that it seemed to him to be necessary when considering the gravity of the offence to have regard to the extent to which the respondent's responsibility was diminished. Dr. Thomson had expressed the opinion that there was evidence that the respondent was suffering from a major process mental illness, possibly schizophrenia, and that at the time of the offence he had an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired his ability to determine and control his actions. It was on this basis that she expressed the view that the respondent's responsibility for the offence was diminished. This opinion was confirmed in her oral evidence, in which she further explained that the respondent was psychotic at the time of the offence. In her report dated 19 September 2005 Dr. Willox expressed the opinion that on the evening of the offence the respondent was suffering from psychosis. She was also of the view that he was suffering from an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired his ability to determine and control these acts. Dr. Willox confirmed these expressions of opinion in her oral evidence. This evidence was not in dispute. Both parties asked the sentencing judge to accept it, and he did. In so far it might be thought that by the time of his report of 26 June 2006 Dr. Darjee did not wholly agree with it, it was not suggested by either the Crown or the defence that the sentencing judge should not now accept it or in some way hold it to be modified. He therefore, he reports, passed sentence on the basis that the respondent's responsibility for the offence was substantially diminished, as Dr. Thomson and Dr. Willox had indicated. In his report the sentencing judge also states:

"In relation to protection for members of the public, it was, of course, with that in mind that I imposed an extended sentence with an extension period of three years. It should also be noted that if, as stated by Dr Darjee towards the end of his report of 26 June 2006, the respondent's mental state deteriorates in prison (which would no doubt give rise to concern as to the risk he might present to the public) then, if the situation warranted it, he could be returned to the State Hospital. In that situation, it seems to me that the protection of the public has been appropriately taken into account."

"Opinion

1. Mr Harrison described and displayed some psycho-pathological

symptoms and signs during his initial stay within the State Hospital. These included episodes of hearing voices and laughter, bizarre statement about aliens; a repeated sensation at the age 17 of something moving around in his chest which he described as disgusting; the belief that he was able to change his facial appearance by staring into mirrors; complaints of fuzziness in his head and muddled thoughts, particularly in the year leading up to the index offence; evidence of disordered thinking in some of his speech patterns at interview and marked incongruous emotional responses; episodes of withdrawal; and intrusive experiences such as hearing music. His partner, mother and sister all independently confirmed unusual behaviour by Mr Harrison in the period leading up to the index offence.

2. Given Mr Harrison's settled state after his trial, his antipsychotic

medication was discontinued. At the time of interview he had been free of any antipsychotic medication for over 14 months and had not become overtly psychotic. He does suffer from anxiety but this is improving and he feels more settled and safe within HMP Peterhead. 80% of people with schizophrenia will relapse within a 2 year period if untreated. It is unlikely that Mr Harrison has schizophrenia. At the present time there is no evidence that Mr Harrison has schizophrenia. At the present time there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Harrison suffers from a major mental illness.

3. Mr Harrison has a significant history of drug abuse, in particular of

Amphetamine and Ecstasy. He denied using either since the summer of 2004 but admits to using Cannabis occasionally. His sister believed that he had used Cannabis once on the day prior to the index offence. Mr Harrison thought that this was not the case and that he had used it around Christmas 2004. Cannabis can lead to increased persecutory ideation. Even if he had used Cannabis near to the index offence, this level of drug use is unlikely to have caused a full blown drug induced psychosis. Mr Harrison scored in the low level of difficulties on the drug abuse screen test (DAST-20) when considering difficulties with drug abuse for the 12 months prior to his detention according to self report.

4. Mr Harrison has a conviction for drink driving. Prior to the index

offence he was drinking up to one bottle of Buckfast wine once per week on a Saturday night. This was confirmed by his partner. He describes silly behaviour at times following the consumption of alcohol. Mr Harrison scored in the low level of dependence on alcohol for the 12 months prior to his detention according to self report on the alcohol dependence scale (ADF).

5. It is the case that Mr Harrison has clear difficulties in coping with

stress, particularly following the birth of children. There is a clear pattern of him driving away at times of stress and being unable to remember what happened. This has been described on four occasions.

i) In 2000 after the birth of Mr Harrison's son, [D]. At this

time he found himself on the M6 in England. He was taking amphetamine daily at this time but he denies any use of drugs prior to the journey although he took some alcohol.

ii) In 2003 he disappeared for 30 hours after the birth of [T].

He denies any use of alcohol or drugs on this occasion. His substance misuse around this time is reported as reduced to weekend use only.

iii) One week prior to his index offence he drove to Glasgow and

denies any recollection of this. His girlfriend reports that he was agitated and shaking prior to driving away. She was sufficiently concerned that she made an appointment for Mr Harrison with his general practitioner following this event. The use of substances is denied on this occasion.

iv) On the night of the index offence he drove to Aberdeen and

denies any recollection of the drive from Inverbervie to Aberdeen until he met his victim. At the time of the alleged offence Mr Harrison admits to buying and therefore may have drunk up to one bottle of Buckfast wine during the period in question. I understand from evidence from the police that he may have bought 2 bottles of Buckfast wine although he denies any recollection of this.

He denies any use of drugs on this day although his sister reports that he may have taken Cannabis on the previous day.

Any use of substances is likely to contribute to impulsive actions and loss of memory but this is denied on two of the above occasions. It may be that at times of stress Mr Harrison has a disturbance or alteration in the normally integrative functions of identity, memory or consciousness, known as a dissociative state. In a dissociative fugue:

i. there must be no evidence of a physical disorder that can explain the characteristic symptoms of this disorder (although physical disorders may be present that give rise to other symptoms).

ii. there are convincing associations in time between the onset of symptoms of the disorder and stressful events, problems and needs.

iii. the individual undertakes an unexpected yet organised journey away from home from the ordinary places of work and social activities, during which self care is largely maintained.

iv. there is amnesia, either partial or complete, for the journey. This amnesia is too extensive and persistent to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness (although its depth and extent may vary from one assessment to the next) or by intentional simulation. (World Health Organisation, International Classification of Diseases - 10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders).

Mr Harrison has a number of pre-disposing factors towards the development of psychiatric symptoms including a family history of depression, anxiety, psychotic symptoms and alcohol misuse. In addition there are clear precipitating factors to the development of his anxiety including parental separation, parental ill health, working on the family farm due to his father's illness, a disruptive relationship and the birth of children. Perpetuating factors at the time of the index offence included his girlfriend's pregnancy and separation from his two children.

6. There is no evidence that Mr Harrison has any form of paraphilia.

Detailed consideration was given during Mr Harrison's assessment within the State Hospital to whether there was any sexual motivation to his index offence. Mr Harrison did remove some of his victim's clothing but there is no definitive evidence a sexual assault took place. Mr Harrison's description of his own sexual relationships and fantasies are not abnormal. Mr Harrison denies any recollection of sexual arousal at the time of the index offence.

7. I have included within my report a structured clinical risk assessment.

This highlights the historical risk facts of previous violence, problematic relationship, substance use problems and major mental illness. The clinical items are relevant to the period around his interview with me in February 2007 and were largely negative with the exception of possible impulsivity. Comments on risk items are difficult because these are limited within the prison setting but would be likely to increase and therefore need reassessed at the time of any release. Mr Harrison would clearly require a package of care that addressed the issues of substance misuse, observed him for the development of any symptoms or signs of major mental illness, provided personal support, and which moderated the effects of any stressors such as new relationships, pregnancy or births of children or an excessive workload.

8. You asked me to address whether a psychological opinion is necessary.

I have provided a detailed risk assessment. You may wish to have a further assessment of his personality carried out. He had a psychological assessment within the State Hospital and is of average intellectual functioning."

With this report before the court, neither party invited us to order any further report. The discussion therefore centred on Dr. Thomson's report and the expressions of opinion contained therein, which we have seen fit to quote in full above.