HMA v MARTIN TAYLOR

At the High Court in Glasgow Lord Matthews imposed an order for lifelong restriction on Martin Taylor after he pled guilty to assault. The punishment part of the sentence will be three years and four months.

On sentencing Lord Matthews made the following statement in court:

“Martin Taylor, you have pleaded guilty to three very serious offences.

The circumstances of these offences and a summary of the impact on the complainers were fully explained in the narrative which was read at the time of your plea and your Counsel Mr McConnachie has amplified what happened in the hours preceding them in order to explain the factors which led to their commission. Suffice it for me to say that one of the complainers, in her victim impact statement, described what happened to her as like something out of a horror film.

It is obvious from Dr Baird’s report, and is very properly recognised by you and Mr McConnachie, that unless these various factors, principally your drug and alcohol abuse, your mental state and your relationship status, are under control you represent a serious risk of harm to the public at large and particularly to young women.

In these circumstances I have decided that it is necessary to impose on you an order for lifelong restriction. This means that after serving what is called the punishment part of the order which I am going to impose you will be released, if ever, only when the Parole Board deem that it is safe to do so and even then you will be subject to strict conditions and will be liable to be recalled to prison if you break those conditions or offend again.

I am aware that you understand that to be the position from what Mr McConnachie has said.

The order will be imposed in respect of charge 7, the most serious of the charges which you face.

In order to calculate the punishment part I first have to consider what the sentence would have been for that charge after trial taking into account the sentences for the other charges, and your previous convictions and deducting from them any element of public protection.

I have decided that had each charge stood alone, the sentences in respect of charge 7 would have been 6 years imprisonment, with 6 months attributable to the fact that you were on bail. In relation to charge 8 it would have been 4 years imprisonment with the same bail attribution and the sentence on charge 11 would have been 18 months imprisonment with the same bail attribution. These would have been ordered to run consecutively giving a total of 11 years and 6 months imprisonment.

Of that, 2 ½ years would have been attributable to the protection of the public, being 1 year for each of charges 7 and 8 and six months in respect of charge 11.

That means that the first figure I come to is 9 years imprisonment. From that I require to deduct one half to reflect when you might have been released had the sentences been determinate.

From the resulting figure of 4 ½ years imprisonment I deduct one quarter to reflect your early plea. That means that the punishment part I impose in respect of the order for lifelong restriction which I impose in relation to charge 7 is 3 years and 4 months imprisonment, 4 months of which is attributable to the bail aggravation. It will run from 26 April 2010

The sentences on charges 9 and 11 with the same deduction in respect of your early plea will be 3 years and 13 months imprisonment respectively with the same allocation of 4 months in respect of the bail aggravation attributable to each.

All of the sentences will run concurrently.

I remind you that you are subject to the notification provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  That will be indefinitely”.