Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >>
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE BY MICHAEL BARRY REDDINGTON [2023] ScotHC HCJAC_33 (29 August 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2023/2023_HCJAC_33.html
Cite as:
[2023] ScotHC HCJAC_33,
[2023] HCJAC 33
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
[2023] HCJAC 33
HCA/2023/324/XC
Lord Pentland
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD BOYD OF DUNCANSBY
in
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
by
MICHAEL BARRY REDDINGTON
Appellant
against
HIS MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE
Respondent
Appellant: Brannigan; Basten Sneddon
Respondent: Miller, AD; Crown Agent
29 August 2023
[1]
The appellant pleaded guilty by section 76 procedure to the following charge:
"on 8 February 2023 at [an address in] Fife you MICHAEL BARRY REDDINGTON
did culpably and recklessly drive a motor vehicle, registered number DY61 HDZ into
the property there, causing damage to same, and did thereafter set fire to said vehicle
which took effect and spread to said property to the danger of the lives of MB, KB,
EB, [aged 11], AB, [aged 9] and IB, [aged 6]..."
2
[2]
The appellant was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment, discounted from 10 for the
early plea. He was also disqualified for life from holding a driving licence. The appellant
appeals against the length of the sentence and the disqualification as excessive.
Circumstances of offence
[3]
The complainers MB and KB live in the dwelling house with their three children
aged 11, 9 and 6. On the day of the offence MB and KB went to bed at 2130. They were
awoken at about 2245 on hearing a loud bang from the garage. On looking out they saw a
car had collided with their garage and was on fire. MB ran out and attempted to put out
the fire with a garden hose. The rest of the family got out of the house. The fire took hold
setting the timber frame of the garage alight. In an effort to move the burning vehicle away
from the house MB drove his own car at force out through the closed garage door pushing
the burning vehicle into the roadway.
[4]
CCTV from the premises showed a car being driven at speed into the garage door.
A male was seen to get out and pour petrol from a canister inside the vehicle. The male then
used either a cigarette or a lighter to ignite the petrol causing an explosion and a large fire.
The male was then seen running away with his left hand on fire. The vehicle had previously
been reported stolen. The petrol was purchased by a male, not the appellant, from a local
petrol station around 15 minutes beforehand.
[5]
The appellant was later found with injuries to his hands and singed eyebrows and
stubble. Prior to the incident the appellant had asked another person for money to buy
petrol as he was going to do something involving fire. He returned to the house where he
was later found by police officers and told others that he had crashed the car and set himself
on fire. He had clear signs of burning both to his clothes and to himself. The following day
3
he was shown a news story about the fire and made a comment which was a clear admission
of his guilt.
Submissions for appellant
[6]
For the appellant Mr Brannigan submitted that the selected headline sentence of
10 years was excessive. While the charge is a serious one it is a crime of culpable and
reckless conduct, not attempted murder, which might have merited a sentence closer to
the one imposed. The appellant has a relatively limited record with no convictions on
indictment and no substantial offence committed for 5 years. His longest period of
imprisonment was 135 days. On the basis of the charge and the appellant's limited schedule
of previous convictions the headline sentence of 10 years was excessive.
[7]
The imposition of a disqualification for holding or obtaining a driving licence for life
was excessive. The appellant is a plumber and wishes to gain full-time employment on his
release from prison. The inability to hold or obtain a driving licence would significantly
impair his ability to get a job and hence hinder the appellant's rehabilitation on his release
from prison. There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant would indefinitely pose a
danger to the public through his use of a motor vehicle.
Analysis and decision
[8]
While we accept the charge is not one of attempted murder the fact is that the
appellant's conduct put the lives of a family, including children, in danger. It was not
impulsive but required a substantial amount of planning. Had it not been for the quick
thinking of the householder in driving his own car through the closed garage door pushing
the burning vehicle away from the house the damage to the property might well have been
4
much more substantial. We agree with the sentencing judge that the level of culpability in
this case is high.
[9]
While this is the appellant's first conviction on indictment, and there has been a
gap in offending in recent times, his record includes a conviction for assault using a stun
gun, four periods of imprisonment and two including restriction of liberty orders. The
sentencing judge took into account his personal circumstances, including the expressions
of remorse and the progress that the appellant considered he had made in addressing his
addiction issues while in custody.
[10]
For these reasons we do not consider that the headline sentence selected by the
sentencing judge was excessive.
[11]
So far as the disqualification is concerned it is not disputed that the sentencing
judge was entitled to use the power under section 248 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland)
Act 1995 to disqualify the appellant from holding or obtaining a driving licence. There is
little in the way of guidance or authority on the use of the power. In Hayes v HMA 1997
SCCR 619 the appellant was convicted of assault by driving a car at the complainer and
knocking him onto the bonnet and against the windscreen. The complainer was not
seriously injured. The sheriff sentenced him to 3 years' imprisonment and disqualified
him from holding a driving licence for 10 years. The court considered that a long period of
disqualification was appropriate and did not interfere with the period chosen by the sheriff.
[12]
The appellant has three rather old convictions for breaches of section 143(1) and (2)
of the Road Traffic Act 1988, one of which resulted in a disqualification of 6 months. While
relevant, the main consideration is the fact that a motor vehicle was used in the commission
of the offence.
5
[13]
We are satisfied that a long period of disqualification is merited but while the offence
was very serious we consider that in this case disqualification for life was excessive. We
consider that the interests of justice would be served by limiting the disqualification to a
period of 15 years. We shall accordingly quash the disqualification for life and impose
a disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 15 years.
[14]
The appeal is allowed to that extent only.
