A Dundee man found guilty of assaulting another man with a glass bottle has had his 20-month sentence reduced on appeal.
In addition, a supervised release order of five years imposed on Christopher Hughes by former Dundee sheriff Richard Davidson was also quashed by High Court of Appeal judges Lady Clark of Calton and Lord Philip.
Hughes admitted assault to injury and permanent disfigurement and was jailed by the sheriff last year.
However, he was granted leave to appeal earlier this month and, following submissions by counsel for the defence and the Crown, the judges upheld both parts of the appeal and reduced the sentence to 12 months.
They noted that in terms of the supervised release order, Sheriff Davidson had paid “insufficient regard” to a social work report that said Hughes was a low risk of future offending.
In addition they said in sentencing him to 20 months the sheriff “fell into error” by not giving sufficient weight to the social work report, his six-year period of productive and non-offending behaviour since his only previous conviction, genuine remorse and motivation to address his alcohol problems.
They added in relation to the supervision order: “The sheriff appeared to have paid insufficient regard to the terms of the criminal justice social work report, which concluded that the appellant ‘presents with low-risk needs, which indicates a low likelihood of reoffending’.
“Further, the reporter considered the appellant as suitable for a community rather than custodial sentence. We have no difficulty in concluding that the sheriff was not entitled to conclude that the statutory test was met in this case.
“In these circumstances, the supervised release order must be quashed.”
In relation to the length of the sentence, the judges concluded: “We consider that the nature and circumstances of the offence would probably have made a custodial sentence inevitable in order to punish and deter drunken behaviour involving unprovoked assault with a bottle in a public place.
“We consider that the sheriff was also entitled to take into account the one previous conviction of the appellant.”
However, they concluded: “The court must always have regard to the individual circumstances of the offender and the potential risk he poses to the public.
“The appellant in this case is considered to be a low risk to the public.
“In addition there are a number of circumstances to which we have referred which, when taken together, point to the conclusion that the sentence imposed by the sheriff was excessive.
“We quash the sentence of the sheriff. We have concluded that a custodial sentence prior to discount of 18 months is appropriate. We discount that by a third in respect of the early guilty plea.”