Appellant: Keegan, Q.C., Solicitor; Sinclairs, Edinburgh

Respondent: Bain Q.C., A.D.

17 June 2010

[1] In this appeal the appellant John Milligan challenges sentences imposed upon him following his conviction on an extensive indictment which involved offences under section 52 and 52A of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and also an allegation of conspiracy.

[2] Grounds of appeal which were extensive were lodged against the sentences imposed, but, as the appeal was argued, the focus of it was confined to the overall effect of the custodial sentences imposed, the position being that on a number of charges there were custodial sentences imposed to date from 26 May 2008 but on the conspiracy charge, charge 54, the sentence imposed was ordered to be consecutive to the other sentences. The overall effect of that was that the total custodial term of what were extended sentences amounted to 17 years and the effective extension period was a further 2 years. There were extension periods selected in relation to the shorter sentences but we take the view that, because of the imposition of the longer sentence, they have no cumulative effect. It was contended that in all the circumstances the overall effect of the sentencing process was excessive in relation to the custodial element.

[3] The offences which the sentencing judge had to deal were of a very serious nature. Speaking of the sentence imposed in relation to the conspiracy charge he says that the nature of this charge caused it to be of the gravest nature. It involved, reading short, a conspiracy to sexually assault children in the most appalling ways. It was abundantly clear on the evidence, he says, that the appellant was a central player in this conspiracy. Looking to the huge number and nature of the chat logs involving the appellant, the contents of which the sentencing judge heard, and having regard to the evidence in relation to the particular subheads of the conspiracy on which he appeared, he was, and I use the sentencing judge's words "clearly at the heart of this most serious conspiracy". He was of the view that a substantial sentence was required in order to reflect the seriousness of the offence. He believed that punishment, deterrence and the protection of the public, particularly young children, required a substantial custodial sentence. We find ourselves in agreement with these views. We have given careful consideration to the overall effect of the trial judge's sentencing decisions, but, having regard to the grave nature of the offences involved, we have not been persuaded that the sentences imposed, or any of them, were excessive. The appeal is refused.

KW