Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
NOTE OF APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE BY CHRISTOPHER McGOWAN
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
On 28 September 2023, at the High Court in The City, the Appellant was convicted of murdering his partner on 28 November 2021 at their shared flat. The conviction detailed a sustained and brutal assault involving multiple injuries, including strangulation with a wet wipe forced down the victim's throat, burning, and stabbing with a screwdriver. The victim was found deceased in her bedroom with extensive injuries. The Appellant had a history of substance abuse and a chaotic lifestyle marked by longstanding violent behaviour and numerous prior convictions. He was sentenced on 25 October 2023 to life imprisonment with a punishment part set at 23 years, including aggravations for committing the offence while on bail and abuse of the partner. The Appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the punishment part was excessive.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the punishment part of 23 years imposed on the Appellant was excessive and constituted a miscarriage of justice.
- How to properly account for the domestic abuse aggravation under the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 when setting the punishment part for a murder sentence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The punishment part of 23 years was excessive given that no weapon such as a knife was used in the commission of the murder.
- Reference to precedents where punishment parts were lower in cases involving knives, suggesting that a substantial but lesser punishment part was appropriate.
Respondent's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Boyle v HM Advocate 2010 JC 66 |
Established a benchmark punishment part of 16 years or more for murders involving a knife. |
Used as a comparative reference to argue the appropriate punishment part for violent murders involving weapons. |
| MacDougall v HM Advocate [2021] HCJAC 32 |
Considered reduction of punishment part from 23 to 20 years in a stabbing murder with significant previous convictions. |
Compared to the present case to assess the appropriateness of the 23-year punishment part. |
| Smith v HM Advocate 2011 SCCR 134 |
Explored the selection of punishment parts in the post-1993 era, including depraved murders with lengthy punishment parts. |
Referenced to contextualise the increase in punishment parts due to legislative changes and case law developments. |
| Walker v HM Advocate 2002 SCCR 1036 |
Set a perceived ceiling of 30 years for punishment parts in murder cases. |
Endorsed as part of the legal framework for sentencing severity. |
| HM Advocate v Al Megrahi, unreported, 24 November 2003 |
Supported the sentencing ceiling and principles outlined in prior cases. |
Used to reinforce the court's approach to punishment part selection. |
| McMurray v HM Advocate (No. 2) 2004 SCCR 702 |
Considered sentencing principles related to punishment parts. |
Referenced to support the court's sentencing rationale. |
| Laurie v HM Advocate [2019] HCJAC 3 |
Example of an 18-year punishment part for a brutal murder with a defendant having summary convictions. |
Used for comparative purposes regarding sentencing severity. |
| Rizzo v HM Advocate 2020 SCCR 397 |
Clarified the approach to applying abuse of partner aggravation by increasing punishment parts. |
Guided the court in assessing the impact of the domestic abuse aggravation in sentencing. |
| Thomson v HM Advocate [2010] GWD 21-417 |
Previously treated domestic context as a mitigating factor, with a 17-year sentence for a "domestic tragedy". |
Contrasted with current statutory approach treating domestic abuse as an aggravation. |
| Broadley v HM Advocate [2003] GWD 34-965 |
Similar prior approach to domestic context as mitigating, with a 14-year sentence. |
Referenced to illustrate the shift in legal treatment of domestic abuse aggravations. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the brutality and sustained nature of the attack, the extensive injuries inflicted, and the domestic context of the offence. It noted the Appellant's significant and extensive criminal history, including prior violent offences and breaches of bail conditions. The court considered the legislative framework, particularly the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016, which elevates domestic abuse to a formal aggravation in sentencing. The court acknowledged that prior to this Act, domestic context was sometimes viewed as mitigating, but now it must be treated as aggravating, warranting an increased punishment part. Although the trial judge may have included the domestic context in the headline sentence before applying the aggravation, resulting in a relatively small additional penalty for the aggravation, the overall punishment part of 23 years was found not to be excessive. The court also referenced relevant precedents to situate the sentence within established sentencing principles and confirmed that the punishment part was appropriate given the facts and the Appellant’s record.
Holding and Implications
The appeal against the sentence was REFUSED.
The court upheld the punishment part of 23 years for the life sentence, affirming that it was not excessive considering the brutal nature of the crime, the Appellant’s extensive criminal history, and the statutory aggravation for abuse of the partner. The decision directly affects the parties by maintaining the original sentence. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing legal principles and statutes.
Click here to read the full judgment