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.

Read more about civil judgments.

HMA v Gordon Telford

 

Nov 26, 2025

At Forfar Sheriff Court, Sheriff Ralph imposed a sentence of 200 hours of unpaid work and one year’s supervision on Gordon Telford. The offender admitted causing the death of Sheila Nicoll through careless driving. Telford has been banned from driving for 20 months.


On sentencing, Sheriff Ralph told Telford:

“Gordon Telford you have pled guilty to a contravention of s.2B of the Road Traffic Act. That is a charge of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. What that means is that your careless actions on the 24 February 2024 caused the death of Sheila Nicoll.

Sheila Nicoll was a widowed lady who had reached the grand old age of 93. The court was told that notwithstanding her venerable age she was she was still an extremely active lady. In particular, she was a regular church attender, she was also a volunteer at the Verdant Works Museum, she would enjoy an annual cruise, was part of a knitting group and would even walk her neighbours’ dog. The tributes paid to her in the Victim Impact Statement from her Goddaughter, for whom Ms. Nicoll was a constant and involved presence in her family life. It also speaks of her tenacity for life, her enjoyment in planning ahead for activities and her confidence in tackling the challenges that life can produce. It is clear that her death and the manner of her passing has had a devastating effect on those who knew her and her loss is still keenly felt in her many social circles.

Turning towards sentencing in this case. Let me first state at the outset of the sentencing process that no size of penalty can adequately reflect or compensate for the loss suffered from this tragic incident. Ms. Nicoll  ought reasonably to have been able to assume that she would be seen when crossing the road at Gray Street in Broughty Ferry that morning and that she would have been safe to do so.

It is difficult to comprehend the devastation that all who knew her must have felt on learning of the distressing circumstances of her death and they must continue to feel at her loss, the manner of which was so clearly avoidable.

I have considered, as I must, the Scottish Sentencing Council’s guidelines on the sentencing process and on the principals and purposes of sentencing that all sentences must be fair and proportionate. I have also had regard to the sentencing guidelines produced by the Scottish Sentencing Council contained in the Statutory Offences of Causing Death by Driving guideline which came into effect on 16 January 2024.

I am grateful for, and I have given careful consideration to, the helpful  submissions from Mr MacDonald on behalf of the Crown and Mr McCormack on behalf Mr Telford in this sad case.

In applying the sentencing guideline to this case I do not accept the defence submission that this offence falls into a Level C offence. Instead I consider that the seriousness of the offence here falls into a Level B offence – that is careless driving that arises from more than momentary inattention but is not driving that falls just short of dangerous driving.

In reaching that conclusion I have had regard to the amount of time Ms Nicoll was on the roadway, being approximately 5 seconds, the unusual approach to this junction along the main street in Broughty Ferry, whereby a vehicle is forced by the road furniture to enter the junction in the middle of the roadway and the effects of the low sun at that time of year which could be seen in the very helpful police video re-enacting your journey taken 24 hours later.

Against that I have balanced the fact that Ms Nicoll was using a zimmer frame and would have presented as a larger than otherwise presence on the roadway and that the other hazards present, namely the positioning on the road and the level of the sun, ought to have alerted you to be extra careful in performing your right turn manoeuvre.

I have also taken account of the fact that you failed to signal before turning your vehicle thus preventing all present that day from knowing your intentions prior to turning your vehicle.

Having established that the offence falls within a Level B, the sentencing guidelines then state that the appropriate sentence is a Level 2 community payback order.

I am next required to select the headline sentence which is appropriate for this offence. In order to do that I am required to balance aggravating factors, such as the fact that Ms Nicoll was a vulnerable road user against mitigating factors such as your lack of a previous road traffic record, your appropriate actions to assist at the scene, your expressions of remorse, acceptance of responsibility and the effect that the offence has had on you. I also note from the CJSWR your efforts to lobby politicians to secure pedestrian crossings in Broughty Ferry.

As a result, I have arrived at a headline sentence in this case of 240 hrs of unpaid work which will be discounted and modified as a result of your plea, intimated before the trial diet, to a period of 200 hours.  I note what is said in the Report about the benefit that may be available to you and your mental health through supervision and I intend to impose a period of supervision of 1 year.

I also require to disqualify you from driving. The period I have selected is a headline disqualification of 2 years which will also be modified for your plea to a period of 20 months.”

26 November 2025