SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing Lord Scott made the following remarks in court:

"Finlay Laird, you have pled guilty to a charge of assault on Daniel MacKay on 13 April 2025 by striking him on the head with a glass and repeatedly punching him on the head, all to his severe injury, permanent disfigurement and to the danger of his life. I saw CCTV footage of the attack which was brief but persistent. The consequences of the attack were severe.

There is a Victim Impact Statement in this case, prepared by Daniel MacKay. He describes the constant reminder of your attack in the scarring you have left him with and the significant impact on his confidence. Anxiety has resulted in him going out much less, basically just to and from his work. He suffers nightmares and flashbacks about the attack. These cause him to relive some of the terrible experience he suffered at your hand. Entirely understandably, he wishes he could go back to the time before the attack.

You are only 19 and have no previous convictions, so, before passing sentence, I asked for a Justice Social Work Report.  This was with a view to finding out more about your background and any other relevant information.

You gave the author of the report an account consistent with the agreed narrative and CCTV footage.  The attack was not premeditated.  It appears to have had its origins to some extent in your excessive consumption of alcohol and bewildering willingness to attack an entirely innocent person with a glass when prompted by a friend who wished him ill. Your victim was no threat to you or anyone else. He did nothing wrong. Your attack was without provocation and remains without rational explanation. Having been the victim of an unprovoked attack yourself when you were 15, you of all people should understand the impact of such an attack, albeit what you did was significantly more serious than what was done to you.

Obviously being under the influence of alcohol and medication is no excuse whatsoever for what you did.

You accept full responsibility for your actions and have acted on this acceptance with a plea of guilty using the procedure to allow for early pleas. The report tells me that you are ashamed and genuinely remorseful. Today, Mr Latif has emphasised this too. I am prepared to accept your remorse as genuine.

The report gives me details of adverse childhood experiences which I take into account. These have impacted over the years on your mental health.

I note your family support and that you plan to return to stay with your mother when you are released.

I note the issues you have had with a history of substance misuse. It appears to me that it would be of benefit to you and society more generally for you to get help with this and your mental health while you are in custody.

 In the risk assessment, it states:

“Taking into consideration the serious violent nature of Mr Laird’s offending behaviour and the level of physical and psychological harm caused to the victim, it is assessed that he does pose a risk of serious harm to the public at this juncture. As such, a full Risk of Serious Harm (ROSH) assessment would require to be completed in order to determine the level of supports and intervention required to reduce his risk of harm in the future.”

 As regards actions needed to promote desistance, it states:

“The main areas of risk for Mr Laird appear to be linked to his poor mental health, alcohol/ substance misuse, past trauma, negative peer associations and propensity to resort to violence. These aspects would require robust interventions and meaningful engagement in the same from Mr Laird in order to reduce his risk and promote desistance.”

The report mentions the possibility of an extended sentence but, on balance, recommends a sentence of under 4 years with a supervised release order.

In addition to the report, I have seen character references produced on your behalf, from your father, your sister and your partner. These character references are impressive. They are thoughtful and carefully written. They give me a much deeper insight into you as a person and help me see that what you did on 13 April last year was very much out of character for you. What they tell me about you makes what you did all the more puzzling for me, your family and friends and no doubt even for you. You have much to offer and I hope that, with additional support and help, you are able to focus on the many positive aspects of your life.

You were 18 at the time and, even now, you are only 19 years of age. Accordingly, the Guideline for Sentencing Young People applies. This Guideline has received some publicity and is not always well understood. It was issued and approved by the Court only after wide consultation and was based on significant international evidence about the development of the young mind and issues often relevant to those under 25 regarding maturity, poor judgment and succumbing to negative peer influences as well as capacity for change. It appears to me that these issues are relevant in your case.

Rehabilitation is emphasised in the Guideline although this can happen in a number of ways and does not necessarily mean that custody can be avoided, especially where a charge is very serious. Mr Latif rightly highlighted that aspects of the Guideline are apparent in your circumstances, especially through what may be increased insight and understanding and expressions of willingness to receive additional help to avoid future offending and build on the positive steps you have taken since this serious offence.

The Guideline states that I should:

“have regard to the fact that some sentences could have more of an adverse effect on a young person than on an older person because of the young person’s age, maturity, and/or personal circumstances”.

The Sentencing Guideline concludes:

“The full range of sentencing options remains open to the court. However, the nature and duration of a sentence imposed on a young person should be different from that which might be imposed on an older person being sentenced for the same, or a similar, offence.” and “A custodial sentence should only be imposed on a young person when the court is satisfied

that no other sentence is appropriate. If a custodial sentence is imposed on a young person, it should be shorter than that which would have been imposed on an older person for the same, or a similar, offence.”

You have no previous convictions. 

I have considered all that has been said on your behalf by Mr Latif , in particular that you have never been in any other trouble and have always accepted responsibility for the attack on Daniel MacKay. 

In summary, I have considered all that is said in the Justice Social Work Reports and all that has been said today on your behalf by your counsel.  The main consideration in sentencing is the serious and lasting physical and psychological damage caused by your actions.

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.  This allows me to reduce the headline sentence or starting point 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 plea of guilty which allowed the case to be resolved without a trial, although there are other factors I have already mentioned - the absence of any other convictions and your personal circumstances more generally.

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.

Given the absence of any other convictions, your plea of guilty, genuine remorse and insight into your substance misuse, I am not convinced that there is a risk of serious harm to the public such as to require either an extended sentence or an SRO. In view of these factors and the positive changes you have already made, I am not satisfied that that the normal period of licence would be insufficient.

If you had been convicted of this charge after trial, the sentence would have been 4 years detention.  That is significantly less than the sentence with which I would have started had you been over 25.

I have reduced that period of 4 years by approximately 30% to take account of the timing of your plea of guilty. I therefore sentence you to a period of 2 years 9 months detention.

The sentence will date from 26 November 2025.

In addition, I must consider whether to make a non‑harassment order in relation to your victim.  I will make such an order.

The conditions of that order are as follows:

That you must not approach, contact, communicate directly or indirectly with Daniel MacKay or attempt to approach, contact or communicate with Daniel MacKay.  The order will be for an indeterminate period and will commence today.”