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.
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 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 James Cook and Brian Reilly
Sep 18, 2025
On sentencing Lord Harrower made the following remarks in court:
"James Wilson Cook, Brian Patrick Reilly, you have each plead guilty, on the first day of a trial diet, to murdering Alastair Campbell, in a brutal assault, in which you also attempted to rob him. At the time of his death, Mr Campbell was fifty-two years’ old. I am grateful to his two sisters for providing me with detailed and moving accounts of what sort of person Mr Campbell was, of why he was special to them, and of the terrible devastation you have caused to his whole extended family. No sentence of this court can alleviate their anguish.
On 29 October 2023, Mr Campbell had been socialising at an address in Ferguson Street, in the town of Renfrew. Shortly after midnight he and a friend left the party in order to go to the friend’s house to continue drinking. On the way there Mr Campbell decided to return to his own home first in order to collect some alcohol. The intention was for them to meet up again at his friend’s house shortly thereafter.
Meanwhile, the two of you had been spending the evening intermittently with Mr Reilly’s partner, coming and going in and out of her flat. You had recently had a falling out with people living in Ferguson Street, and you were angry that someone had been at her door that evening while you were out. You left the flat at about 00:40 hours without saying where you were going. You, Mr Cook, had sharpened various weapons. CCTV images show you descending the common stair. There is an object in the rear pocket of one of you, while the other is holding a bottle.
It would appear that it was Mr Campbell’s misfortune, just before 1 am, to find himself heading for Hairst Street, in the company of his friend, at the same time as you were making your way there from Robertson Park. CCTV images show you following them past Renfrew Town Hall and into Wilson Street. Mr Campbell parts company with his friend in order to return home to Renfield Street. At that moment, you seize the opportunity of his being alone, in order to catch him up and carry out a sustained, vicious and cowardly assault, the details of which have just been provided to the court, and which I do not intend to rehearse here.
What I would say is this. The knife wounds, including the 8cm-deep wound to Mr Campbell’s lower abdomen, as well as the multiple defensive injuries to his right forearm and hand, are indicative of the use of substantial force. After you had fled the scene of your crime, Mr Campbell managed to stagger back towards his flat. Since he wasn’t found until shortly before 3 am, it is impossible to say how long he was made to suffer before eventually succumbing to his injuries.
On one reading of the narrative, you, Mr Cook are described as having been the principal assailant, while you, Mr Reilly are mainly occupied with rifling through Mr Campbell’s pockets and attempting to rob him. I am grateful to your counsel for confirming today that this reading is correct. In Mr Allan’s submission, that places Mr Reilly in a position which he described as “marginally subordinate”. I am prepared to accept that submission, albeit that it will only have a marginal impact on your respective levels of culpability. That is because each of you has associated yourself with the common criminal purpose of assaulting and attempting to rob Mr Campbell.
The only sentence I may lawfully impose for the crime of murder is a life sentence. However, I also have to specify a period which must pass before you can apply for release on parole. The period I select is known as the punishment part of the sentence, and its purpose is to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence. The parole board will deal in due course with the protection of the public. Whether you will ever be released will be a matter for others to determine.
I have taken full account of the careful submissions made by each of your counsel in mitigation. I find that there is some basis for distinguishing between you on the basis of your personal circumstances.
In the first place, although you both have appalling criminal records, yours, Mr Cook, is worse. Since 1993 you have acquired five previous convictions on indictment, four at High Court level, for analogous offences of assault, assault and robbery, assault and attempted robbery and attempted murder, for each of which you received lengthy custodial sentences. Three of your previous convictions involved the use or possession of a knife. Mr Reilly, you have a prolific record of previous convictions for a variety of offences dating back to 2006. Six of these were on indictment, four were for assault, three of which involved the use of a knife or other weapon, and two of which caused severe injury.
I have also taken account in your case, Mr Cook, of your adverse childhood experiences and of the possibility that you may also have been suffering from a form of mental illness. This view receives a measure of support from a report provided by a consultant psychiatrist and founded on by Mr McConnachie. The psychiatrist did not find it possible to comment on whether your illness contributed directly to your offending. He does comment unfavourably on your level of candour, and makes extensive reference to your repeated failures to take prescribed drugs as well as suspicions that you may have been taking illicit drugs. However, he also suggests, albeit tentatively, that you may be suffering from a form of psychosis that is not entirely self-induced.
Taking all these circumstances into account, I will sentence you as follows.
Mr Cook, for the murder and attempted robbery of Alastair Campbell, I sentence you to life imprisonment. Had it not been for the timing of your plea, I would have fixed the punishment part at 19 years. However, the narrative records that in August 2025, you indicated a willingness to plead guilty to the charge of murder, as a result of which I am prepared to reduce your sentence by approximately one eighth. The punishment part will therefore be 16 years and 8 months, backdated to 8 November 2023 when you were remanded in custody.
Mr Reilly, for the murder and attempted robbery of Alastair Campbell, I sentence you too to life imprisonment. Had it not been for the timing of your plea, I would have fixed the punishment part at 17 years and 6 months. However, given the timing of your plea, I am prepared to reduce your sentence by one tenth. The punishment part in your case will be 15 years and 9 months, backdated to 3 November 2023 when you were remanded in custody."
18 September 2025