- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Appeal against Conviction and Sentence by Stacey Balfour against His Majesty's Advocate (High Court of Justiciary)
Court Opinion Summary (Anonymized)
Factual and Procedural Background
On 2 May 2025 a jury at the High Court convicted the Appellant and her Co-accused of murder arising from an assault on 23 July 2023 at The Location in The City. At sentence on 24 June 2025 the Appellant received life imprisonment with a punishment part of 16 years. The Crown's case was that the Co-accused inflicted repeated stab wounds with a knife belonging to the Appellant and that the Appellant bore joint criminal responsibility by acting in concert. The Appellant gave evidence, denying memory of the killing and disputing knowledge that her knife was used. The Co-accused did not give evidence. During deliberations the jury returned a purported verdict finding the Co-accused guilty of murder and the Appellant guilty of culpable homicide; that purported verdict was treated as incompetent by the judge who gave further directions and returned the jury to reconsider. The Appellant appealed against conviction (challenging the judge's handling of the incompetent verdict and responses to jury questions) and against sentence (challenging the length of the punishment part).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge erred in responding to the jury's incompetent differentiated verdict (guilty of murder as to the Co-accused; guilty of culpable homicide as to the Appellant) by directing further deliberation rather than recording the Appellant's initial culpable homicide finding as an acquittal.
- Whether the judge's answers to the jury's questions about "accessory to murder", presence, and awareness of the knife were insufficient or misleading and thereby caused a miscarriage of justice.
- Whether the punishment part of 16 years imposed on the Appellant was excessive having regard to her age, background and mitigation.
Arguments of the Parties
Crown's Arguments
- The judge's original and supplementary directions on concert were correct and answered the jury's questions; the example given during directions was particularly pertinent and there was no need to state expressly that mere presence or earlier involvement fell short of liability for murder (citing Sim v HM Advocate).
- The initial purported differentiated verdict indicated the jury considered the Appellant bore joint criminal responsibility; the judge was correct to treat the verdict as incompetent under Gardiner and to invite further deliberation rather than record an acquittal.
- The punishment part was appropriate given the Appellant's active participation, the frenzied nature of the attack, lack of remorse and her role as provider of the knife; sentencing authorities cited supported the sentence differentiation between the Appellant and the Co-accused.
Co-accused's Arguments
- The Co-accused's counsel contended the whole verdict was inconsistent with directions and incompetent; it was open for the jury to convict both of murder or both of culpable homicide.
Appellant's Arguments
- The judge should have recorded the initial verdict of guilty of culpable homicide as an acquittal because it showed the jury rejected the Crown's case to convict the Appellant of murder.
- The judge's responses to the jury's second and third questions (regarding presence and awareness of the knife) were inadequate; she should have emphatically directed that mere presence or mere awareness of the knife did not meet the threshold for murder art and part.
- The punishment part of 16 years was excessive given the Appellant's youth, lack of previous convictions, traumatic childhood, mental health history and parental status; the Sentencing Young People guideline should have attracted greater mitigation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Gardiner v HM Advocate [2024] HCJAC 44, 2025 JC 114 | Joint criminal responsibility for murder; that differentiated homicide verdicts are not open where the Crown case is based on concert. | The judge was correct to treat the jury's differentiated verdict as incompetent in light of Gardiner and to give further directions rather than record the initial verdict. |
| Goldie v HM Advocate [2020] HCJAC 9, 2020 JC 164 | Authority on approach where problematic or inconsistent jury verdicts arise and on inviting further directions and deliberation. | Cited as supporting the course of giving additional directions and sending the jury to reconsider the verdict. |
| Sim v HM Advocate [2016] HCJAC 48, 2016 JC 174 [33] | On sufficiency of directions and that certain matters need not be stated expressly where standard directions adequately address them. | Cited by the Crown to support that the judge need not expressly state that mere presence or earlier involvement is insufficient for murder if original directions were clear. |
| Kerr v HM Advocate 1992 SLT 1031 | Where votes cast fell short of the requisite eight votes for conviction the verdict should be accepted as an acquittal. | Distinguished: court held Kerr did not apply because the purported verdict in this case did not demonstrate a final verdict of acquittal. |
| Took v HM Advocate 1989 SLT 425 | Authority on treatment of verdicts and intention to convict versus acquit. | Referenced as part of appellate guidance supporting judge's approach where intention to convict was apparent. |
| White v HM Advocate 1990 JC 33 | Authority on handling problematic jury verdicts. | Referenced with Took and others as supporting the judge's approach. |
| Cameron v HM Advocate 1999 SCCR 476 | Authority on competence of verdicts and procedure when verdicts are problematic; noted with approval in later cases. | Noted approvingly and relied on to justify inviting the jury to reconsider rather than recording an acquittal. |
| SS v HM Advocate [2023] HCJAC 48, 2024 JC 113 | Where returning of a verdict demonstrated by necessary implication the jury could not convict, the judge should have treated incompetent verdict as acquittal. | Distinguished: court held facts here differed because the purported verdict did not signal a final acquittal and therefore reconsideration was appropriate. |
| Mcfadden v HM Advocate [2009] HCJAC 78, 2009 SCCR 902 | Authority for the formulation "knew or must have known" in concert liability. | The court considered the formulation sound and not challenged in this appeal. |
| Haig v HM Advocate [2024] HCJAC 28, 2025 JC 9 | Sentencing Young People guideline considerations; comparative sentencing of young offenders. | Referred to in sentencing; court considered the Appellant at the upper end of the guideline's scope and distinguished Haig (teenage offenders) from the present case. |
| RH v HM Advocate [2025] HCJAC 16 | Sentencing Young People guideline considerations. | Cited by reference in sentencing; used in assessing mitigation and appropriate punishment part. |
| McLachlan v HM Advocate [2026] HCJAC 14 | Recent guidance on youth and sentencing; noted that it did not assist the Appellant. | Cited by the Appellant but the court observed it did not assist her submissions on sentence. |
| HM Advocate v Boyle [2009] HCJAC 89, 2010 JC 66 | Guidance on differentiating sentence between principal and secondary actors. | Cited to support differential punishment parts between the Co-accused (principal actor) and the Appellant (secondary role). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the evidence (forensic, pathology, CCTV, witness accounts and recorded prison calls) and the judge's directions on concert, murder and culpable homicide. It accepted that the jury's initial differentiated verdict was incompetent under Gardiner because the Crown case was based on concert. The judge concluded the jury had revealed a misunderstanding of concert and that their purported verdict did not demonstrate a final acquittal of the Appellant. The judge therefore repeated the core directions (emphasising that, to convict the Appellant of murder, the jury must be satisfied she "knew or must have known" the Co-accused was using a knife and continued participation) and returned the jury to reconsider all verdicts so that competent verdicts remained available for both accused.
The court examined whether the judge's answers to the jury's questions were inadequate. It held that a simple yes/no answer to the second and third questions would not have been adequate and that the supplementary directions, while substantially repeating earlier directions, were legally correct and provided the necessary answer: to convict the Appellant of murder she must have participated knowing the Co-accused was using a knife. The court found no miscarriage of justice in the judge's approach.
On sentencing the court considered mitigation (youth, traumatic history, first offender status, parental responsibilities) against the gravity of the offense (a frenzied, sustained knife attack producing multiple stab and incised wounds and defensive injuries), the Appellant's role in supplying and participating in the assault, and her lack of immediate remorse. The court applied sentencing guidance (including the Sentencing Young People guideline and authorities cited) and concluded the punishment part of 16 years was not excessive.
Holding and Implications
Conviction Appeal: Refused. The court refused the appeal against conviction, concluding there was no miscarriage of justice in the judge's decision to treat the initial verdict as incompetent, to repeat and clarify directions on concert, and to return the jury to reconsider.
Sentence Appeal: Refused. The court refused the appeal against sentence and held the punishment part of 16 years was not excessive having regard to the role of the Appellant, the seriousness of the attack and applicable sentencing guidance.
Direct effect: the Appellant's convictions and sentence stand. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond application of existing authorities cited.
Alert