A violent thug who attacked a reveller in Perth has had his bid to have his sentence cut rejected by appeal judges.
Steven Harrison was found guilty of assault to severe injury after a trial in March last year.
During the attack, which took place in May 2012 on South Methven Street, his 20-year-old victim was punched so hard that he was left with “significant” damage to his teeth.
At the time of the offence Harrison had four previous convictions for assault, including one for assault to severe injury, and was the subject of a community payback order in respect of culpable and reckless conduct. He had been placed on probation on four previous occasions.
On May 8 2013, he was sentenced to seven months imprisonment.
Throughout court proceedings Harrison was placed on a 7pm to 7am curfew. After failing to appear for a court date, he was handed an additional period on curfew, with the hours reduced to 10pm to 7am.
Harrison’s lawyers asked three judges the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Carloway, Lord Menzies and Lord Philip to consider whether the curfew should have led to a shorter sentence.
However, the judges said a bail curfew is intended to protect the public, not to punish the offender. In a written judgment, they said that only in “exceptional” circumstances would a bail curfew be regarded as a mitigating factor when sentencing.
“The court does not consider that there is anything of an exceptional nature which required the court to have regard to the periods spent on curfew as a mitigatory factor when selecting the appropriate sentence,” they went on.
“Even if the court had taken the view that there ought to have been some regard to the time spent upon curfew, in reassessing the question of sentence, the court is unable to reach the conclusion that the sentences imposed at first instance were either inappropriate or excessive.”