British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >>
Jordan v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2006] ScotHC HCJAC_53 (06 June 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2006/HCJAC_53.html
Cite as:
[2006] HCJAC 53,
[2006] ScotHC HCJAC_53
[
New search]
[
Help]
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
|
Lord Johnston
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon
|
[2006]
HCJAC 53
XC141/06
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD JOHNSTON
in
NOTE OF APPEAL AGAINST
SENTENCE
by
JASON ALEXANDER JORDAN
Appellant;
against
HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE
Respondent:
_______
|
Act: G. Martin, Solicitor
Advocate; Martin,
Johnston & Socha, Dunfermline
Alt: M. Hughes, A.D.; Crown Agent
6 June 2006
[1] The
appellant pled guilty on 2 March 2006 at the High Court in Kilmarnock to a
charge of contravening the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982 section
52(1)(a). The charge related to
pornographic material involving children.
[2] The
trial judge imposed an extended sentence of 8 years and 8 months, backdated to 8 February 2006. The custodial part of that sentence was fixed
at 4 years and 8 months and the extension period at 4 years.
[3] Mr.
Martin, on behalf of the appellant, based his submissions on the provisions of
subsection (5) of section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which he submitted
placed an absolute ban on any court involvement in an extended sentence for a
statutory offence which exceeded the maximum term of imprisonment permitted by the statute creating the
statutory offence in question.
[4] In
this case the sentence actually imposed by the sentencing judge was a period of
8 years and 8 months, backdated to 8 February 2006. Such a sentence plainly falls
within the maximum sentence of 10 years, which the Civic Government (Scotland)
Act 1982 permits for a contravention of section 52(1)(A).
[5] Mr.
Martin submitted that it was clear the sentencing judge had started the
discounting process from a total figure of 11 years, if the custodial part and
the extension period she mentioned were added together. It was argued this reasoning rendered
incompetent the sentence she had actually imposed. .
[6] With
that we do not agree. Whatever may have
been the reasoning of the sentencing judge, in the ultimate result the sentence
she imposed did not contravene the provisions of section 210A(5)
of the 1995 Act.
[7] For
these reasons the appeal is refused.
