reply back:
Thank you for your email in relation to the above case
Sentencing is a matter for the court and the prosecutor plays no part in it. The legislation applicable to sentencing is a matter for Parliament. While the Lord Advocate has the right to appeal against ?unduly lenient? sentences, the Appeal Court has set out a high test which must be satisfied before a Crown Appeal against sentence will be successful. The court has stated that: -
?It is clear that a person is not to be subjected to the risk of an increase in sentence just because the Appeal Court considers that it would have passed a more severe sentence than that which was passed at first instance. The sentence must be unduly lenient. This means that it must fall outside the range of sentences which the judge at first instance, applying his mind to all the relevant facts, could reasonably have considered appropriate.?
The sentence imposed in this case was in fact an extended sentence of 10 years comprising a custodial element of 6 years together with an extended period of supervision of 4 years. The custodial part of the sentence, of 6 years, was discounted by the judge (as he had to do in terms of the relevant legislation) from a starting point of 8 years to reflect an early plea of guilty by the accused.
Crown Counsel have carefully reviewed the sentence imposed on Jaimi Watt in this case and have considered all of the available material. Crown Counsel have concluded that in all the circumstances of this case the sentence imposed could not be said to be outwith the range of sentences that could reasonably be considered appropriate by the sentencing judge exercising his discretion and taking all the relevant factors into account. Accordingly there can be no Crown appeal against the sentence imposed in this case.
I appreciate that this may be a disappointing result for you but hope that the detailed explanation is of some assistance.
Yours sincerely
PS/COPFS