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. 

Once charges are spent, any statement in relation to them is removed and cannot be provided or acknowledged. Statements published before the launch of the website 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 independent Scottish Sentencing Council website.

Read more about victims of crime and sentencing.

Read more about civil judgments.

HMA v Jean Ozan


Jan 27, 2021

At Dundee Sheriff Court today Sheriff Jillian Martin-Brown sentenced Jean Ozan to a Community Payback Order after the offender pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving.


On sentencing, the Sheriff made the following statement in court:

“Mr Ozan, I have taken into account what has been said on your behalf by your 

solicitor, as well as the terms of the report from criminal justice social work and the 
victim impact statements. Ultimately, after careful consideration, I have decided 
that an alternative to custody is available in your case. I will set out the sentence that 
I am imposing first and then I will explain the reasons for my decision. 
Given the seriousness of your offence, I have decided to impose a community 
payback order with a requirement for the maximum amount of unpaid work, which 
is 300 hours. That will be reduced by one third to 200 hours in light of your guilty 
plea at the outset, and is an alternative to custody. If you breach your community 
payback order, then a custodial sentence may be imposed in its place. I will allow 
two years for you to complete those hours in light of the pandemic – it may be 
possible for you to complete them sooner than that.  
I am also obliged to disqualify you from driving and require you to sit the 
extended test to regain your licence. Given the seriousness of the offence, I will 
disqualify you from driving for a period of three years. That will be reduced by one 
third to two years in light of your guilty plea at the outset. It will also be backdated 
to the date of your interim disqualification on 10 November 2020. 
As you have acknowledged, the offence of causing serious injury by 
dangerous driving to which you have pled guilty is serious and would usually 
attract a custodial sentence.  It is clear from the victim impact statements that Mr and 
Mrs Guest have both suffered serious physical injuries, as well as long lasting 
emotional and psychological injuries.   
Mr Guest still requires to undergo physiotherapy. Mrs Guest has been left 
with pain and requires assistance with daily tasks. It is a testament to their dignity 
that they have said that they bear you no animosity, despite the way that your 
actions have changed their lives. 
However, section 204(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 
provides that I may not impose a custodial sentence on a first offender such as 
yourself unless no other method of dealing with you is appropriate.   
For the reasons that I will outline, I am satisfied that a non-custodial sentence 
is appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case, which are unusual. 
Firstly, while the nature of your driving was dangerous in that you drove on 
the wrong side of the road, it was not intentional. You had just returned from a visit 
to France and made an error in driving on the right hand side of the road. When 
you saw Mr & Mrs Guest approaching, you believed in error that they were driving 
on the wrong side of the road and instinctively steered to the right. Though you 
slowed down, a collision could not be avoided. There was no suggestion of drink, 
drugs, tiredness, distraction, speeding or driving aggressively. 
Secondly, you immediately accepted responsibility for the collision. You 
were unconscious for a short time but when you woke up you realised what had
happened, admitted you were driving on the wrong side of the road and that the 
collision was your fault. You pled guilty at the earliest opportunity.  
Thirdly, you have expressed considerable remorse for the injuries that you 
caused to Mr & Mrs Guest, for example, I note that you have been praying for them, 
together with the church that you attend. You have insight into the impact of your 
offending on them and the risk of further offending has been assessed by social work 
as very low. 
The Scottish Sentencing Council’s Principles and Purposes of Sentencing 
Guideline makes it clear that in weighing up all the relevant factors of your case, I 
am required to impose a sentence which is no more severe than is necessary.   
I am of the view that in light of all the particular circumstances of this unusual 
case, the non-custodial sentence I have imposed achieves the purposes of 
punishment and societal disapproval, as well as the opportunity for effective 
rehabilitation and to make amends.”
27 January 2021