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 Gordon Marshall
Feb 2, 2026
Sheriff Millar said:
"Gordon Marshall, you have plead guilty to two charges of fraud on a very similar basis.
In both cases, you purported to be a genuine business or tradesperson. You convinced two separate members of the public to trust you in respect of significant improvements to their homes. The truth being that you never intended to carry out the work that you described to them whilst still taking money from them. I have had the benefit of victim impact statements from both complainers which outlines the devastating impact of your crimes upon them. The impact of your actions goes beyond mere financial loss.
In respect of charge 1, the complainer instructed and trusted you with extensive building works at her home. You led her on a ruse which lasted months, constantly claiming delays and making false assertions and promises. She ultimately transferred you a total of over £28k without these works being carried out and at a huge loss to her.
In respect of charge 2, whilst of lesser value than charge 1, it is still a significant sum of money and the second complainer was again subjected to deceit and lies about work that you claimed would be done to her home. By providing her with a legitimate company email address and bank account details which were used for work previously carried out, you created a believable ruse that this work was being done by the legitimate company.
The evidence to me suggests that your actions were intentional and devious and the lies continued over a considerable period of time.
I do not accept your position as one of naivety and that you believed that the work had been undertaken by or was to be undertaken by another person to whom you had given money to.
You advised social work that you did not know that the work at the first complainer's house had not started until after Christmas 2019 but this is inconsistent with the messages between you in October, November and December of that year.
In addition, if your position was to be believed, I question why you would continue to work with the same person in 2021 when it appeared that they had taken money and carried out no work in 2019. You were also unable to explain this when asked by SW.
I note that this is not your first conviction for such offences. In 2023 you were convicted of 3 charges of fraud where you were sentenced to a community based disposal.
Whilst all of these offences are of some age now, it is clear to me that they form part of a pattern of fraudulent behaviour where people have allowed you into their homes and you have left behind a trail of mistrust and misery.
In addition to the harm caused to these complainers, fraud cases such as this cause real damage to the trades community generally in Scotland. It erodes the essential basis of trust on which such work is undertaken. Those who seek to perpetrate such offences must be made aware that the courts will take a very dim view of such matters indeed.
The information from the Crown is that the complainers have only received minimal compensation.
From enquiries this morning, I understand that you breached your previous community payback order and failed to pay back the total compensation requirement, despite being afforded more time to do so. The compensation element was not repaid in full and ultimately was revoked and alternative sentence imposed. This suggests to me that you do not continue to have the means to remedy all the complainers that you have defrauded. Given your previous failures to repay money, I am not convinced that you would comply with a compensation order imposed in this case.
Now, I have taken account of the information in the SW report and that which you have said today on your own behalf.
I also note that there has been no further offending reported since 2021 and you are now suffering from health issues now yourself.
I have taken all of the information provided to be into account. The sentencing guidelines in Scotland require that all relevant factors must be considered including the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim and others affected, and the circumstances of the offender.
The purposes of the sentence imposed this case should seek to protect the public from offending criminal behaviour and acknowledge the harm caused to victims and communities. I also consider that any sentence imposed in this matter must seek to punish you as a consequence of your offending behaviour.
Taking everything into account, including your previous convictions and the devious nature of these offences, I consider that the only possible sentence available is a custodial one.
Sentence
Charge 1, would have been one of 52 weeks (or 12 months) but I will modify that to 46 weeks to take account of your plea at the trial diet
Charge 2 , would have been one of 26 weeks (or 6 months) but I will modify that to 23 weeks to take account of your plea at the trial diet
These were separate crimes and so the sentences will run consecutive which makes a total of 69 weeks imprisonment to date from today."
2 February 2026