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 Peter Murray
Oct 9, 2025
On sentencing, Lady Carmichael said:
"The jury found you guilty of two offences of indecent assault. Both complainers described various instances of sexual behaviour by you which progressed to penetrative assaults. The assault on the complainer in charge 1 involved penetration of her vagina with your fingers. The assault on the complainer in charge 2 involved penetration of his anus with your penis. The offences are serious themselves because of that conduct. The complainers were vulnerable by reason of their age and their residence in a children's home. You had access to them because of your employment there. Your conduct involved a significant breach of trust on your part. It was conduct obviously liable to harm the victims and has had that result.
If I were sentencing on charge 1 alone I would impose sentence of 6 years and if sentencing on charge 2 alone, a sentence of 8 years. I need to impose a sentence that is proportionate looking at the indictment as a whole. I take into account also your age and state of health.
The only other offending of which you have been convicted is of an analogous nature. The conviction post-dates the conduct on this indictment. The conduct that resulted in that conviction pre-dates the conduct on this indictment. There is no evidence that you have offended since your other conviction, some 30 years ago. With that chronology in mind, and again bearing in mind your age and state of health, I am not persuaded that it is necessary to impose an extended sentence because the period you would otherwise serve on licence would be insufficient for the protection of the public.
I consider that the sentencing purposes of punishment, deterrence and public protection will be served in this case by sentencing you in cumulo to 10 years’ imprisonment, backdated to 8 September 2025 which is when you were first remanded in connection with this matter."