Introduction

Armstrong v HM Advocate [2021] ScotHC HCJAC_34 is a significant case adjudicated by the Scottish High Court of Justiciary on June 24, 2021. The appellant, Dillin Armstrong, aged 24 at the time of the offence, contested the extended sentence of 13 years imposed for his conviction of attempted murder. The appeal centered on the principle of comparative justice, particularly regarding the sentencing disparities among co-accused individuals involved in the same offence. The key issues revolved around whether the trial judge appropriately applied sentencing principles, especially in light of varying sentences received by Armstrong's co-accused.

Summary of the Judgment

Armstrong was convicted alongside five co-accused members of a gang for a frenzied and brutal assault on a rival gang member, Rhys Robert Reynolds, resulting in severe injuries and an attempted murder charge. The trial judge initially sentenced Armstrong to an extended term of 13 years, with 10 years custodial. However, after reviewing appeals from his co-accused, whose sentences were significantly reduced, Armstrong appealed on the grounds of comparative justice and excessive sentencing. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) reviewed the case, focusing on comparative sentencing principles. Ultimately, the court allowed Armstrong's appeal in part, substituting his sentence with an extended 11-year term, including 8 years custodial, to better align with principles of comparative justice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents to establish the framework for comparative justice:

• Thomas v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 66: Emphasized the importance of applying the principle of comparative justice among co-accused, ensuring similar offences receive comparable sentences.
• McCormick v HM Advocate 2016 SCCR 308: Highlighted the influence of an offender's maturity and sense of responsibility, especially concerning younger defendants.
• Kinlan v HM Advocate 2019 JC 193 and LM v HM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 84: Addressed the responsibilities of juveniles in sentencing, considering their capacity for change and best interests.
• Lambret v Tudhope 1982 SCCR 144: Stressed that any significant differences in sentencing should have rational explanations related to the offenders' backgrounds and circumstances.
• Nelson v HM Advocate [2020] HCJAC 31; Iqbal v HM Advocate [2018] HCJAC 65: Provided sentencing guidelines for attempted murder, indicating custodial sentences ranging from 9 to 16 years based on various factors.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on ensuring that sentencing adhered to the principle of comparative justice. This principle mandates that co-accused individuals charged with similar offences receive proportional and comparable sentences, barring significant differences in their roles, backgrounds, or circumstances. The court scrutinized the initial extended sentence imposed on Armstrong against the reduced sentences of his co-accused, particularly Mr. Renton, whose sentence was notably lenient given his similar background and criminal history.

The court acknowledged Armstrong's extensive criminal history, including 18 previous convictions, six for violence, and his lack of remorse or engagement with rehabilitation efforts. However, it noted that Mr. Renton, despite a similarly troubled background and previous convictions, received a significantly shorter custodial sentence. This disparity prompted the court to reassess whether Armstrong's extended sentence was justified or whether it violated the principles of comparative justice.

Additionally, the court considered the Scottish Sentencing Council's guidelines, which recognize individuals under 25 as young persons with greater potential for rehabilitation. Armstrong, being at the upper limit of this age bracket, was still subject to considerations surrounding maturity and capacity for change. The court concluded that while an extended sentence was appropriate for a violent offender of Armstrong's stature, the significant difference compared to his co-accused's sentences needed to be rectified to uphold fairness and proportionality.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the importance of the principle of comparative justice in the Scottish legal system, especially in cases involving multiple offenders charged with similar crimes. By highlighting discrepancies in sentencing among co-accused individuals, the court underscored the need for consistent and proportionate sentencing practices. The ruling serves as a precedent for future cases, ensuring that judges meticulously consider the sentences of co-accused to maintain fairness and prevent perceived injustices. Furthermore, it emphasizes the necessity of detailed and transparent judicial reasoning when imposing or altering sentences, particularly in cases involving complex backgrounds and multiple offenders.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Comparative Justice

Comparative justice is a sentencing principle that ensures individuals who commit the same or similar offences under similar circumstances receive comparable sentences. This principle aims to maintain fairness and consistency within the judicial system, preventing disparities that could lead to perceptions of bias or unequal treatment.

Extended Sentence

An extended sentence refers to a judicial decision to impose a longer period of punishment beyond the standard sentencing guidelines. In Scotland, this is typically applied to offenders deemed to pose a significant risk to the public, ensuring prolonged supervision and rehabilitation efforts.

SCCC Reference

A Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) reference occurs when a convicted individual seeks a review of their case on grounds such as potential miscarriages of justice or significant legal errors that warrant reassessment of the conviction or sentence.

Conclusion

The Armstrong v HM Advocate [2021] case is a pivotal judgment that underscores the critical role of comparative justice in sentencing within the Scottish legal framework. By meticulously analyzing the sentences of co-accused individuals and ensuring proportionality, the court upheld the principles of fairness and consistency. This decision not only rectified the initial disparity in Armstrong's sentencing but also set a robust precedent for future cases, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to equitable treatment of offenders. The judgment serves as a clarion call for judges to diligently consider the broader context of co-accused sentences, ensuring that each verdict is both just and reflective of established legal standards.