A judge may decide to publish a statement after passing sentence on an offender in cases where there is particular public interest; where a case has legal significance; or where providing the reasons for the decision might assist public understanding.

Please note that statements may include graphic details of offences when it is necessary to fully explain the reasons behind a sentencing decision.  

Follow us if you wish to receive alerts as soon as statements are published. 

Statements are removed after around 12 months, but may be available on request. Please email

The independence of the judiciary is essential to safeguard people’s rights under law - enabling judges to make decisions impartially based solely on evidence and law, without interference or influence from the government or politicians.

When deciding a sentence, a judge must deal with the offence that the offender has been convicted of, taking into account the unique circumstances of each particular case. The judge will carefully consider the facts that are presented to the Court by both the prosecution and by the defence.

For more information about how judges decide sentences; what sentences are available; and matters such as temporary release, see the Scottish Sentencing Council website.

Read more about victims of crime and sentencing.

Read more about civil judgments.

HMA v Dawn Reilly


Apr 3, 2020

At the High Court in Edinburgh today, Monday 9 March 2020, Lord Boyd imposed a community payback order with a two year supervision requirement and 200 hours of unpaid work after the offender pleaded guilty to breach of the peace, by taking a photograph of a complainer while he gave evidence in a High Court trial.

On sentencing Lord Boyd made the following statement in court:
"You have been convicted on your own plea of committing a breach of the peace by taking a photograph of a complainer while he gave evidence in a High Court trial and posting it on social media along with derogatory comments.
While I accept that it may have been impulsive I have no doubt that the intention was to intimidate him and other potential witnesses. You displayed the mentality of the mob; your actions struck at the heart of the administration of justice. In ordinary course such an offence would incur a substantial prison sentence.
I have however listened carefully to what your counsel has had to say. I have also seen the social work report and the letter from your GP. I accept that in your case there are circumstances which mean that I should consider a non-custodial disposal. This offence occurred when you were under considerable strain witnessing your 18 year old son on trial for attempted murder.
The Crown have confirmed that the incident happened in the immediate aftermath of threats from the witness against those in the dock including your son. For reasons I need not rehearse you are especially close to your son and you were under substantial emotional pressure.
Your actions in the end appear not have impacted on the trial as your son along, with his co-accused, was convicted. You have been a victim of domestic abuse over a prolonged period of time and you continue to suffer the mental effects of such abuse. You have a relatively minor record of convictions.
You are a single mother to six children. The youngest three, who still live with you, are 11, 5 and 1 year old. While there are arrangements to look after them were you to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment they are not without difficulty.
I have no doubt that your children would be adversely affected by a custodial sentence imposed on you. All of that persuades me that if you agree to the conditions I can, consistent with the objectives of sentencing, impose a community payback order."