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 Arran Reid

Dec 9, 2025

At the High Court in Edinburgh, Lord Scott imposed a prison sentence of 8 years and 4 months on Arran Reid. The accused pled guilty to assault to severe injury, permanent disfigurement and the danger of life and a separate charge of discharging a firearm. Both offences were aggravated by a connection with serious organised crime.

On 9 December 2025, on passing sentence, Lord Scott said the below to the accused:

“Arran Reid, you have pled guilty to assaulting David McMillan on 22 May of this year in that, while acting with others, you repeatedly struck him on the head and body with machetes or similar instruments to his severe injury, permanent disfigurement and to the danger of his life. The most serious injury was a displaced fracture of David McMillan's skull with the presence of some air within it.

You have also pled guilty to reckless discharge of a revolver just 3 weeks later at the window of an address in Edinburgh which had previously been occupied by someone else with a connection to organised crime. As it happens, the address was unoccupied so either that was not known or what you did was intended as a warning.

You committed both offences while on bail from 30 May 2024. In addition, you had been released from a previous sentence of 12 months imprisonment only on 4 February, just 3 and a half months earlier.

Both offences are aggravated by a connection with serious organised crime. The agreed narrative confirms that the background to these offences is the well reported feud between organised crime groups in Edinburgh which is being investigated by Police Scotland in Operation Portaledge.

There is no Victim Impact Statement in this case.

You are 27 years of age. I note that you have several previous convictions, including 5 matters on indictment. 2 of these were for violent offending – a conviction from 16 December 2015 for assault and abduction while on bail and one from 11 May 2017 for a racially aggravated assault with a knife and other offences. You have breached bail and court orders on many occasions. You have served several custodial sentences. I am told that the longest sentence you have served to date is one of 28 months detention imposed in 2017.

The offending on the present indictment is not therefore out of character for you, but, as Mr Scullion said, it represents a significant escalation in the gravity of your offending. That is agreed to be connected to serious organised crime is clearly an aggravation, whatever your connection to serious organised crime may be.

I have considered all that has been said on your behalf by your Senior Counsel, Mr Scullion. He has rightly emphasised your early plea of guilty which is the only significant aspect of mitigation. I note your expressions of regret and determination to make good use your time in custody so as to come out clear of drugs and offending.

I must and will recognise the timing of your offer to plead guilty and that you did so using the accelerated procedure specifically designed to facilitate early pleas. Those who wish to secure maximum recognition of an early plea must take the steps you did to offer the guilty pleas at as early a stage as possible. Your early plea allows me to reduce the starting point or headline sentence because of what is referred to in court as the utilitarian value of your plea, that is primarily the saving of court time although a plea of guilty has other benefits too. In mitigation, the main consideration is the early plea of guilty which allowed the case to be resolved without a trial.

Having regard to the whole circumstances of the case, only a custodial sentence is appropriate. It is necessary to punish you and to seek to deter you and others from behaving in this way and to protect the public from you.

Extreme acts of planned, targeted and wanton violence like this on the streets of Scotland will simply not be tolerated. The courts will continue to make it clear that offences connected to serious organised crime will be met with significant sentences.

As both offences were connected to serious organised crime and therefore related to that extent, I consider it appropriate to impose a cumulo sentence, that is a single sentence to cover both charges.

If you had been convicted of this charge after trial, the sentence would have been one of 12 and a half years, that being greater by 6 months due to the bail aggravation.

I must specify the sentences I would have imposed if dealing with the 2 offences separately.

The sentence on charge 1 would have been one of 10 and a half years imprisonment had it not been for your plea and, on charge 2, it would have been 4 and a half years imprisonment. The starting point for the cumulo sentence is not, however, 15 years imprisonment but, as I have said, 12 and a half years imprisonment. That takes into account the principle of totality.

I will reduce that period by 30% to take account of the timing of your plea of guilty.

In the circumstances, I therefore impose a sentence of 8 years 4 months imprisonment. I make no order as regards the unexpired portion of 75 days from your last sentence.

The sentence will date from 17 June 2025.”

9 December 2025