SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing, Sheriff Thomson told AB:

“You pled guilty to these charges at an accelerated trial diet.

Both charges involved you being present and active throughout two prolonged episodes of public disorder, involving the reckless discharge of fireworks towards people and buildings.  It is only a matter of luck that your activities did not result in the gravest of consequences for innocent members of the public.

On the evening of 5 October 2024, in Edinburgh city centre, you culpably and recklessly distributed fireworks to a large group of children and adults who were involved in public disorder.  You discharged fireworks towards others, including targeting the police, discharged fireworks into the roadway and discharged fireworks towards buildings.  In so doing you showed total disregard both for your own safety and for the safety of others. The disorder started at around 8pm when the area was busy with members of the public going about their ordinary business. It continued for approximately one hour and twenty minutes.

One month later, on 5 November 2024 at Calder Road and Sighthill Court, you were present and active throughout an extended incident of mobbing, again involving the reckless discharge of fireworks towards people, vehicles and buildings.  The residents of that area have been subjected to mindless public disorder around bonfire night for some years.  It is an increasing and significant local concern. On this occasion there were prolonged and extensive attacks on police officers, disruption to the local community, and attacks on infrastructure, including blocking the main road with a bonfire. People and vehicles were targeted with fireworks and other missiles.  I note however in light of the further information provided today that you were not involved in the incident in which a bus was targeted.  In an act of astonishing recklessness, a BP petrol garage was targeted with fireworks and fireworks were set off near a petrol tanker. You were specifically observed placing street furniture and domestic bins on fire, lighting fireworks and aiming or throwing them towards vehicles, members of the public and the petrol station. You charged at public order officers trying to protect the public and threw rocks at them. Importantly, you coordinated others within the group and instructed them and directed their movements. The disorder continued for around two hours.

You were on bail at the time of both offences.

Quite apart from the distress caused to members of the public, significant harm resulted.  Businesses were targeted by the groups in which you were involved. Fireworks were set off in businesses causing distress to staff and customers. Damage was caused to property and vehicles, running into thousands of pounds. A massive response by the emergency services was required, with the costs involved in that, and with those services then being diverted from other operations. In the incident on 5 November fire crews were unable to be mobilised from the local station due to the area being locked down. Other fire crews were held in remote areas as it was not safe to return.  These delays could have cost lives. As I have already said, it is only a matter of luck that the actions of these groups in which you were involved did not result in significant further damage or indeed fatalities.

I have listened carefully to what has been said in mitigation and have read the reports in detail.

In mitigation, your previous offending has been dealt with through the children’s hearing system.   In terms of the prospects for rehabilitation, the Justice Social Work report indicates that you have begun a programme of intervention with professionals at the Good Shepherd Centre designed to address previous behaviours and to develop strategies for emotional regulation and conflict resolution. It is said that there is scope for addressing some risks and need factors by way of supervision. You are assessed as posing a medium risk of serious harm in the future.

Separately, the advice of the children’s hearing is that were the matter be remitted to them there would be a thorough plan for supporting you including, in particular, a placement in Glasgow where you would live in your own flat with support available from Stepdown staff.  It is said that you have benefited from courses and projects including anger management work and it is noted that you are becoming more able to process and talk about your emotions including reflecting on past behaviour. There is the prospect of a course becoming available which if completed would provide you with a profession.

I have considered the advice provided by the children’s hearing regarding treatment. That advice is to remit the matter to the children’s hearing system for disposal.  In light however, as accepted by your lawyer, that that system would of necessity only be able to deal with you for a period of months, given your age, my decision is to dispose of the case rather than remit it to the Principal Reporter.

It is important that you and others affected by your actions know the basis of how I have approached sentence.  Given your age, the court must have regard to the Scottish Sentencing Council guideline on the sentencing of young people.

The exercise of sentencing a young person is different from that of sentencing an older person, because a young person will generally have a lower level of maturity, and a greater capacity for change and rehabilitation, than an older person.  The court requires to consider whether immaturity may have contributed to the offending behaviour.

Young people are generally less able to exercise good judgement when making decisions.

I recognise that in your involvement in these events, you thought less clearly about what could happen in consequence of your actions, including the impact on any victims and others affected by those actions; and you took more risks.

As such, I recognise that your culpability is lower than that of an older person who is to be sentenced for the same, or a similar, offence.

The purposes of a sentence include protection of the public; punishment; rehabilitation of offenders; giving the offender the opportunity to make amends; and expressing disapproval of offending behaviour. The most important aim or purpose of a sentence will depend on the crime and the offender.

In the case of a young person, rehabilitation, the welfare of the child and the desirability of their reintegration into society are to be primary considerations. A young person may have greater potential to change.

Having considered the seriousness of your behaviour and the harm caused I have concluded that there is no alternative to a custodial sentence.  Culpability is high, harm is high, and the purposes of punishment and condemnation outweigh other sentencing purposes. The guideline recognises the prospect of custody in appropriate cases, and this is one such. 

The guideline provides that if a custodial sentence is imposed on a young person, it should be shorter than that which would have been imposed on an older person for the same, or a similar, offence, the effect being that rehabilitation and integration can begin at an earlier date. I have taken that into account in the sentence imposed.

I will deal with these charges on a cumulo basis. Having considered the range of potential sentences available and taking account of the fact that the offences were committed while you were on bail I have concluded that a headline sentence of twenty four months’ detention is fair and proportionate.

Taking account of your plea of guilty, which I am treating as if given at a first diet, that will be reduced to eighteen months’ detention, of which two months relates to the aggravations.  Finally, you will be given the benefit of the lengthy period you have already spent on remand.  The sentence will be backdated to 18 November 2024 being I am advised the date of first remand.

That is the sentence of the court.”

4 August 2025