Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant appealed the imposition of an order for lifelong restriction with a punishment part of 12 months’ imprisonment imposed by the High Court at The City on 13 March 2026 after he pled guilty to a section 38 threatening or abusive conduct charge involving social-media messages, an explosion using gas canisters, and posting the recording online. [Para 15][Para 19][Para 22][Para 24]
Police learned of the explosion after social-media contacts saw the Appellant’s video, attended the locus, searched his home, and recovered drawings and items consistent with explosive-making materials. [Para 28][Para 29][Para 30]
After interview, the Appellant gave shifting explanations, while police also recovered messages and phone material showing bomb-related references, admiration for extremist violence, and Unabomber imagery. [Para 32][Para 33][Para 34][Para 35][Para 37][Para 40][Para 42][Para 44][Para 47][Para 54][Para 55][Para 60][Para 64][Para 69][Para 71][Para 72]
He had prior convictions for violence and weapon-related offending, and the court considered a justice social work report and a psychologist’s risk assessment before sentence. [Para 74][Para 76][Para 77][Para 78][Para 80][Para 89][Para 90][Para 92][Para 103]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the statutory risk criteria for an order for lifelong restriction were met on the evidence before the sentencing judge. [Para 193][Para 194][Para 196][Para 204]
- Whether the judge erred by treating lesser disposals, including a supervised release order or extended supervision, as inadequate to protect the public. [Para 169][Para 170][Para 195][Para 202]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The offending caused no physical injury or damage, was not directed at any person or organisation, and did not show capability to carry out a sophisticated attack. [Para 172][Para 174][Para 176]
- The Appellant was a young offender and should have received more weight for rehabilitation and immaturity. [Para 176][Para 180][Para 204]
- His record was limited, he had never served a custodial sentence, and there were protective factors such as family support and the benefits of medication. [Para 177][Para 181][Para 204]
- A medium risk assessment, together with the availability of at least some supervised release, meant the judge was not entitled to find the OLR criteria met. [Para 172][Para 178][Para 180][Para 204]
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent’s submissions.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Moreno v HM Advocate [2024] HCJAC 27 |
Cited as an example of a reported appeal in which an order for lifelong restriction on a younger offender was refused. [Para 180] |
The court said this and the other cited cases did not persuade it to overturn the order in the present case. [Para 180][Para 210] |
| NS v HM Advocate [2025] HCJAC 24, 2025 JC 342 |
Cited as another reported appeal involving a younger offender and an order for lifelong restriction. [Para 180] |
The court treated it as part of the appellant’s comparative authorities but found it did not alter the outcome. [Para 180][Para 210] |
| Hamilton v HM Advocate [2026] HCJAC 10, 2026 SLT 549 |
Cited as a further comparison case in the same category. [Para 180] |
The court referred to it only as a comparison and said it did not persuade the court otherwise. [Para 180][Para 210] |
| Ferguson v HM Advocate [2014] HCJAC 19, 2014 SCCR 244 |
The judge’s task is to assess the risk criteria on a balance of probabilities from all the material before the court, and there is no formal requirement to consider an extended sentence before imposing an OLR. [Para 197][Para 201] |
The court relied on Ferguson to uphold the sentencing judge’s approach to the risk assessment and to reject any suggestion that an extended sentence had to be considered first. [Para 197][Para 200][Para 201] |
| Nyiam v HM Advocate [2026] HCJAC 5, 2026 SCCR 144 |
Reaffirmed that there is no formal requirement to consider an extended sentence before imposing an OLR. [Para 197] |
The court used Nyiam alongside Ferguson to support the proposition that the sentencing judge could proceed directly to the OLR assessment. [Para 197][Para 201] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court held that the OLR was competent because the offence fell within section 210B(1)(b), and the only live question was whether the risk criteria in section 210E were met on a balance of probabilities. [Para 193][Para 194][Para 196]
The judge was entitled to place substantial weight on the risk assessment report, but was not bound by the medium-risk label, because the statutory task was to assess the whole picture, including the agreed narrative, the justice social work report, and the Appellant’s history and conduct. [Para 170][Para 196][Para 201][Para 204]
The court accepted that an extended sentence was not competent for this offence and that a supervised release order would provide only limited supervision, which the judge considered insufficient for public protection. [Para 195][Para 202]
The risk assessor had identified serious intent, persistent ideological fixation, and possible future scenarios involving reckless public disorder or unsophisticated terrorist-style conduct, even though she assessed the Appellant as only medium risk overall. [Para 199][Para 204]
Looking at the Appellant’s long history of violence, bomb-related materials, social-media conduct, and prison correspondence, the court concluded that the judge was entitled to find a propensity to seriously endanger the public if the Appellant were at liberty. [Para 206][Para 207][Para 208][Para 209]
The court also noted that the Appellant’s case was not displaced by the cited comparison authorities, and that Parliament required an OLR where the risk criteria were met. [Para 200][Para 210]
Holding and Implications
APPEAL REFUSED. The order for lifelong restriction remains in force, and the opinion states no broader implication beyond the application of existing statutory principles to the Appellant’s case. [Para 210][Para 211]