Appeal against Sentence by John Farquhar against HMA (High Court of Justiciary)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a punishment part of 22 years on 4 April 2025 for murder and attempting to defeat the ends of justice. The offence occurred on 17 October 2023 at a residential address in Guardbridge, where the Appellant fatally stabbed the victim multiple times following a confrontation. The Appellant was on bail at the time of the offence. After the murder, the Appellant attempted to conceal the crime by removing the murder weapon, fleeing the scene, using the victim’s bank cards, and misleading the victim’s family and police. The victim’s family provided a victim statement highlighting the profound emotional and physical impact of the death.

The Appellant has a significant criminal record including prior convictions for serious violent offences and drug trafficking. Initially, the Appellant offered to plead guilty to culpable homicide, which the Crown rejected. He later gave notice of a guilty plea to murder before trial. The sentencing judge considered aggravating factors including the Appellant’s criminal history, bail status, and conduct after the murder, ultimately imposing a punishment part of 22 years after allowing some reduction for the plea.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the length of the punishment part of 22 years for the Appellant’s life sentence was excessive given the spontaneous nature of the murder and the Appellant’s criminal history.
2. Whether the sentencing judge appropriately balanced mitigation, including the Appellant’s plea of guilty and expression of remorse, against aggravating factors.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The murder was spontaneous and not premeditated, representing a gross overreaction to the victim’s words.
• The Appellant’s early offer to plead guilty to culpable homicide and subsequent remorse should have been given greater weight in mitigation.
• The sentence imposed was excessive considering the passage of time since the Appellant’s previous serious convictions.

Respondent's Arguments

• This was a particularly serious and intentional murder aggravated by the Appellant’s conduct after the offence, including deception and attempts to conceal the crime.
• The Appellant’s significant and recent criminal history, including multiple serious violent offences and offending while on bail, justified the sentence.
• The sentencing judge properly considered all relevant factors and the sentence was appropriate and not excessive.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the spontaneous nature of the killing but emphasized the intentionality and severity of the attack, including multiple serious knife wounds to the victim’s neck and defensive wounds. The conduct following the murder—removal of the weapon, use of the victim’s bank cards, deception of the victim’s family and police, and attempts to delete incriminating evidence—were materially aggravating factors. The Appellant’s significant history of violent offending, including offences committed while on bail, further justified a severe sentence.

The court rejected the argument that the early plea to culpable homicide mitigated the sentence, reasoning that the facts clearly constituted murder. The court also found that remorse appeared only after the Appellant’s deplorable post-offence actions. The sentencing judge’s detailed reasoning was found to be balanced and careful, properly weighing all aggravating and mitigating factors. The court concluded that the punishment part of 22 years was not excessive and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence was REFUSED.

The decision confirms the appropriateness of a substantial punishment part for murder involving serious violence, aggravating conduct post-offence, and a significant criminal record. There are no broader legal implications or new precedents established. The ruling directly upholds the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion and maintains the sentence imposed on the Appellant.