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 Barry Murray, Scott Henderson, Brian Miller and Carri Stewart
Dec 9, 2025
On sentencing Lady Haldane made the following remarks in court:
"I propose to deal firstly with charge 2, the most serious charge on this indictment.
You have each been convicted of the murder of Steven Hutton on the evening of 30th March 2024. The evidence, which the Jury accepted, provided a compelling picture of a plan to inflict serious violence upon Mr Hutton in his own home. Whilst motive is not in a general sense relevant, the tragedy of these events is amplified perhaps by the fact that the genesis of this attack appears to have been a missing packet of Pregabalin medication.
The photographs shown to the court were eloquent of what was property described as a frenzied assault upon a man drowsy or asleep in his own living room.
Steven Hutton lost his life in these horrific circumstances, compounded by the fact that not one of you sought to seek assistance for him as he lay dying until you were all well clear of the property. That is behaviour that can only be described as callous.
His loss to his family and friends is profound and something from which they are unlikely ever to recover. Their loss is immeasurable, and I am well aware that nothing that I say or do today will ease their pain.
Those close to Mr Hutton, in particular his mother, have attended faithfully every day of this trial, and their quiet dignity throughout what must have been at times harrowing and distressing evidence stands in stark contrast to your behaviour. Mrs Hutton has in addition provided a detailed and moving account of her relationship with Mr Hutton, her only son, and the impact his loss has had upon her. I thank her for taking the time to prepare this thoughtful document and I have taken all that she has said into account. On behalf of the court I extend my deepest condolences to Mrs Hutton and all those who knew and cared for Steven Hutton.
You each have amassed a considerable number of previous convictions, most of which are eloquent of the drug addicted lifestyle of all of you, of which there was much evidence in this trial
In your case Ms Stewart you are clearly a prolific offender and have numerous convictions for violence and assault
I accept however that none of you have any previous convictions for matters anywhere close to the severity of the charge that you all faced in this case.
The sentence for murder is set by law and is imprisonment for life. That is the sentence that I impose upon each of you today. I must also fix a period of time, known as the punishment part of your sentence. That is the minimum period that you must serve before you are eligible to be considered for release on life-long licence
You should understand that in fixing the punishment part the court is not in any sense fixing the time when you will be released. Instead the court is fixing the number of years which must be served by you before you can apply for release. The punishment part does not take into account the need for public protection. That is taken into account if and when you apply in due course for your release. Whether or not you are ever released will therefore be for others to determine in the future; and even if you are released you will be subject to the conditions of a licence for the rest of your life and liable to be recalled to prison if you break any of the conditions. What the punishment part does do is to reflect the sentencing aims of retribution and deterrence.
Having regard to the nature of the evidence as a whole, as well as the evidence given by three of the accused I see no reasonable basis upon which to differentiate between each of you in terms of the punishment part which you each must serve. The evidence spoke of an attack in which you all participated. In so saying I pay particular regard to the fact that violence perpetrated upon Mr Hutton was extreme, including beating him with a hammer and a number of other injuries inflicted over a period pf perhaps 20 minutes, in different parts of the property, to say nothing of the final fatal stab wound to the heart.
Therefore in respect each of you the punishment part I impose will be 20 years.
In your case Mr Murray that sentence will be backdated to 2nd April 2024
Mr Henderson in your case I have been made aware of an unexpired portion of a previous sentence in respect of which it is open to me to impose a return order. The effect of that is to backdate your sentence to 24th July 2024.
Mr Miller in your case the agreed appropriate date for backdating of your sentence is 19th June 2024 having regard to the sentence you have served in the interim.
Ms Stewart in your case I also require to impose a sentence in respect of your conviction on charge 1. The sentence I impose having regard to your significant number of previous convictions for analogous offences is one of 18 months to be served concurrently with your sentence on charge 2
In your case, again having regard to intervening sentences I backdate your sentence on charge 2 to 7th August 2025.