SENTENCING STATEMENTS

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.

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 judicialcomms@scotcourts.gov.uk.

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.

HMA v Ramay Russell & Marcus Winston Clarke

Jul 2, 2025

At the High Court in Aberdeen, Judge Miller sentenced Ramay Russell and Marcus Winston Clarke to extended sentences for their parts in a violent incident. Russell was convicted of assault to severe injury, permanent disfigurement and danger of life and received a custodial term of 4 years and 6 months and an extension period of 2 years. Clarke was convicted of attempted murder and received a custodial term of 8 years and an extension period of 2 years.

On sentencing, Judge Miller said:

"Having considered the evidence relating to a violent incident in John Street in Aberdeen on the afternoon of Sunday 17 September 2023, the jury convicted you Marcus Clarke of the attempted murder of Christopher McDonald and convicted you Ramay Russell of assaulting Christopher McDonald to his severe injury, permanent disfigurement and to the danger of his life.

In returning these verdicts the jury must have accepted that during that incident you Marcus Clarke repeatedly stabbed Christopher McDonald and that you Ramay Russell struck him with what was described as a set of bolt cutters but that, more significantly, you were acting in concert with Marcus Clarke in furtherance of a common criminal purpose to assault Christopher McDonald, a common purpose which anticipated that Clarke would use a knife or similar instrument in the course of assaulting Christopher McDonald. On that basis, although the jury deleted the reference to attempted murder from your conviction, it is clear that they held you Ramay Russell responsible in law along with Marcus Clarke for the assault by stabbing of Christopher McDonald.

It was agreed at trial that Christopher McDonald’s injuries, resulting in particular from the three stab wounds which the jury must have accepted that you Marcus Clarke inflicted to his torso in the course of the assault, were so severe that he would not have survived them but for the swift medical attention he received.

This incident occurred in the public street in a busy shopping district close to Aberdeen city centre on a Sunday afternoon, in front of members of the public who were in the area shopping and generally going about their business. The evidence suggested that this incident was connected to an incident earlier the same afternoon in George Street, close to John Street, during which you Marcus Clarke were seen on CCTV images to become involved in a brief verbal altercation with Christopher McDonald, which ended when you were seen to punch him on the head.

The evidence indicated that, after that incident, you Marcus Clarke spent some time walking around Aberdeen city centre, that you then met up with Ramay Russell and got into the passenger seat of his car and that, whether you were looking out for Christopher McDonald or whether you simply happened to see him in John Street, you both took the decision to leave the car and approach him on foot, Clarke running towards him and Russell walking behind Clarke, after which this violent incident, during which Christopher McDonald was repeatedly stabbed by you Marcus Clarke, occurred.

Marcus Clarke, in convicting you of attempted murder it is clear that the jury rejected your pleas of self-defence and provocation. Ramay Russell, in convicting you of assault to the danger of life it is clear that the jury also rejected your position, stated during your police interview, that your only involvement was to attempt to calm and defuse an incident involving others and that you had no connection to anyone else who was involved.

At the time of these events you were both men of mature years – Clarke aged 47 and Russell aged 42.

I have taken due account of the fact that Christopher McDonald was in possession of a set of bolt cutters when this incident began and that at one stage he removed them from a bag and had them in his hand. However the mitigation provided by this feature of the case is limited by the fact that Christopher McDonald only produced that item after you both exited Russell’s car and approached him as I have described. Further, the jury had all of the available evidence regarding Christopher McDonald’s part in the incident before them when they returned their guilty verdicts.

Marcus Clarke, your schedule of previous convictions spans a wide range of criminal conduct, including crimes of violence, dishonesty, disorder and road traffic offences. You have also served significant custodial sentences for firearms and drug dealing offences (in 1997, 2007 and 2011). Your last custodial sentence was for three years in 2011, for being concerned in the supplying of controlled drugs.

The account of these events which you appear to have given to the social worker who prepared your criminal justice social work report is contradicted by the evidence which was led at your trial and includes an explanation for your use of a knife against Christopher McDonald which did not feature at your trial.

I have noted what is said in your criminal justice social work report about your personal circumstances. I also note the assessment contained in the report that this offence appears to mark an escalation in the seriousness of your offending and in the risk of serious harm to others which you present.

I have also taken account of everything said on your behalf by your counsel today.

Because of the gravity of the crime which you have committed, your previous criminal record and the terms of your criminal justice social work report, I am satisfied that a significant sentence of imprisonment is the only appropriate disposal in this case and that the period for which you would otherwise have been on licence in relation to that sentence would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from you when you are eventually released. For that reason, I am going to pass on you an extended sentence of ten years, which is in two parts. The first part of the sentence is an immediate period in custody of eight years. This custodial term will run from 25 September 2023, when you were first remanded in custody in relation to this case.

This immediate period in custody is not the end of your sentence. The second part of your sentence will be served in the community. From the date of your release, you will be under licence for an extension period of two years. The conditions of your licence will be fixed by the Scottish Ministers. If, during this extension period, you fail to comply with the conditions of your licence, it may be revoked and you may be returned to custody for a further period in respect of this case. The court also has power to deal with you if you commit another offence after your release and while you are on licence.

Ramay Russell, although your record features only one adult conviction for violence, which was dealt with in 2022 by means of a community sentence, you too have many convictions spanning a wide range of criminal conduct, including two lengthy custodial sentences for drug dealing offences (in 2001 and 2010) and shorter custodial sentences for crimes of disorder, road traffic offences and having a bladed article in public. Your last custodial sentence was for road traffic offences in 2019.

Your criminal justice social work report states that you present with the maximum level of risk and needs and your own statements to the author of the report make it clear that you pose a risk of serious harm to others.

I have also taken account of everything said on your behalf by your counsel today.

I bear in mind that you were not convicted of attempted murder, that you had no involvement in the earlier incident in George Street, that you did not personally stab Christopher McDonald and that the jury held you responsible for stabbing him by applying the principle of joint criminal responsibility. Although the crime of which you were convicted was extremely serious, these differences between you and Marcus Clarke are significant in the context of sentence. On the other hand, I must have regard to the risk assessment which is contained in your criminal justice social work report and the need to protect the public from the risk of serious harm which you clearly present.

Because of the gravity of the crime which you have committed, your previous criminal record and the terms of your criminal justice social work report, I am satisfied that a significant sentence of imprisonment is the only appropriate disposal in this case and that the period for which you would otherwise have been on licence in relation to that sentence would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from you when you are eventually released. For that reason, I am going to pass on you an extended sentence of six years, which is in two parts. The first part of the sentence is an immediate period in custody of four years, six months of which relates to the fact that, at the date of this incident, you were subject to a bail order imposed at Aberdeen Sheriff Court six days earlier. This custodial term will run from 7 May 2025, when you were remanded in custody at the end of your trial.