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 David Appleby

Sep 10, 2025

At Edinburgh Sheriff Court, Sheriff Iain Nicol sentenced David Appleby to 5 years' imprisonment after the offender was convicted of 10 charges involving the abuse of former partners.

On sentencing, Sheriff Nicol said:

"The sentencing process firstly requires me to consider the seriousness of the offences for which the jury have found you guilty, both in terms of your level of blame and the harm you have caused.

A jury has convicted you of 10 charges consisting of:

i. Assault, assault to injury and assault to severe injury

ii. Assault to severe injury and danger of life

iii. 2 of Assault to Injury and danger of life

iv. Assault to Severe injury and permanent disfigurement

v. 2 contraventions of section 38 (1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010 and

vi. A contravention of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 1998 which included an assault to injury.

The evidence during the trial made clear that these offences involved four of your former partners, with the offending spanning a 16 year period. The worst examples of your conduct include:

i. repeatedly stamping on Complainer A’s head,

ii. tightening a necklace around Complainer B’s throat causing her breathing to be restricted,

iii. compressing Complainer C’s neck to the point she was rendered unconscious and jamming her head between a door and the door frame, pushing her, causing her to fall onto a weights bench and suffer permanent disfigurement to her lip and nose; and

iv. pushing Complainer D into a glass hi fi unit causing her injury.

There were various other examples of assaults or threatening or abusive behaviour in a domestic context, one in the presence of a child.

The seriousness of the offences, therefore, is extremely high, both in terms of your own culpability and the harm caused, or the potential harm which could have resulted.

Taking that into account, I require then to consider the appropriate sentencing range for these offences. I have had regard to the terms of the High Court Appeal decision in the case of HMA against Gallagher, issued in August of this year, and all that was said in relation to sentencing assault to danger of life. I acknowledge that none of the 3 charges involving danger to life fall into the category of there being injuries which would have resulted in the death of a complainer if they did not receive urgent medical treatment. None-the-less their lives were put in danger in all 3 instances.

Were it not for the decision taken by another sheriff shortly before this trial commenced, who held that the sentences to be imposed in relation to charges 6 and 10 require to be discounted because of the preliminary issue of oppression, the sentencing range for these offences, taken together, would be between 5 and 6 years' imprisonment. Anything above 5 years would require me to remit the case to the High Court for sentencing, given that you did not accept your guilt on any matter and, apart from charges 6 and 10, no discount applies. Given the terms of that earlier decision, I am modifying the sentencing range to between 4 and 5 years imprisonment as the appropriate range for a cumulo sentence on all 10 charges.

In terms of mitigation, I note your personal circumstances which include the fact your current partner has recently had a child, you are the main breadwinner and run two small businesses. I have had regard to all that is said by your counsel and what is said in the Justice Social Work Report including the impact that a custodial sentence may have on your businesses and family life. The report makes clear you are a medium risk of re-offending and that you minimised the impact of much of your behaviour. I have considered the comments made by the social worker in relation to potential disposals. There is no recommendation for a community based disposal.

These offences were directed against women who were entitled to go about their lives without fear of such abuse from the person they were in a relationship with. 3 of the 4 complainers have provided victim impact statements. It is clear from these statements that your conduct towards them has had a long lasting, and quite possibly lifelong, negative, effect on their lives. They describe the mental scars and ongoing psychological trauma, their inability to trust men and form lasting relationships and the ongoing impact on their daily lives. One describes being robbed of a normal life. Some have required professional psychological treatment.

Your failure to acknowledge your guilt prior to the trial has required these women to come to court and testify, which has forced them to relive their traumatic experiences. They are to be commended for their bravery and fortitude in speaking up. Even now you have shown no remorse. I also note you have a number of previous convictions including crimes of violence albeit your record is, in large part, historic.

A modern day society does not tolerate violent and abusive domestic offending. A sentence is required which acts as punishment and expresses public condemnation of this type of conduct. If you commit serious crimes you can expect serious punishment.

Taking all matters into account, I am of the view that the appropriate cumulo sentence for all charges on the indictment, applying the totality principle, is the maximum which I can impose. You are therefore sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. 4 months of that is attributable to the aggravations relating to race and involvement of a child in charge 11.

The sentence is backdated to 27 August 2025 when you were remanded in custody. The Justice Social Worker recommends a period of post release supervision. As this sentence makes you a long term prisoner, I cannot impose a Supervised Release Order and therefore a report will be submitted by me to the parole board to explain the risk factors, as I see them, and the steps I would recommend they take in setting your licence conditions. That will include a recommendation for post release supervision. It will be for the parole board to set any licence conditions when you are ultimately released. I do not consider that the test for an extended sentence has been met on this occasion, and the risks can be adequately controlled by appropriate licence conditions.

I am obliged to set out what the individual sentences would have been on each charge if a cumulo sentence was not being imposed. The following sentences would have been imposed if they had been stand alone charges:

i. Charge 1 - 1 year in prison

ii. Charge 2 - 3 years in prison

iii. Charge 3 - 2 years in prison

iv. Charge 4 a Community payback order requiring a 12 month period of supervision and 200 hours of unpaid work

v. Charge 5 a community Payback order requiring a 12 month period of supervision and 150 hours of unpaid work

vi. Charge 6 - 3 years imprisonment discounted from 4 years to reflect the court’s earlier decision on the issue of oppression.

vii. Charge 7 - a community Payback order requiring a 12 month period of supervision and 150 hours of unpaid work.

viii. Charge 8 – 4 years 6 months' imprisonment

ix. Charge 10 – 2 years discounted from 3 years to reflect the court’s earlier decision on the oppression minute.

x. Charge 11 – 3 years 4 months of which 4 months is attributable to the racial and child aggravations.

As stated, looking at the whole circumstances of the case in terms of the sentencing process guidelines, I do not consider it appropriate to sentence each offence individually but, instead, impose a cumulo sentence which is fair and proportionate, to reflect the systematic course of abusive behaviour which you have undertaken over a prolonged period against 4 complainers. Were it not for the earlier decision made in relation to charges 6 and 10, I may well have formed the view that my sentencing powers were inadequate and remitted the case to the High Court.

In addition to the custodial sentence, I am granting the Crown applications for Non Harassment Orders under section 234A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 whereby you must not approach or contact or attempt to approach or contact, in any way whatsoever, Complainers A, B & C for an indefinite period from today’s date. I am also imposing a Non Harassment Order under Section 234AZA of the 1995 Act whereby you must not approach or contact, or attempt to approach or contact, Complainer D, in any way whatsoever, for an indefinite period.

Any breach of a Non Harassment Order constitutes a separate criminal offence which can attract a further sentence of imprisonment. You do however have the right to seek to vary or revoke the Non Harassment Orders should there be justification for doing so."