Jordan Mitchell had been sentenced to 14 years in prison after pleading guilty to three offences. 

Mitchell attend Forth Valley Royal Hospital on the 5th October 2021. When at hospital, he told staff that he had been cut by a knife. Mitchell then produced said knife creating the first offence of being in possession of a weapon. The appellant then told staff that he purchased the knife to fulfil his desire to kill people and that he would continue to kill until he was arrested by police. Lastly, he assaulted another patient in the hospital. 

At the appeal, his childhood was explored and it was noted that he had a history of violence which included fire raising and killing animals. An image was painted of a lonely childhood leading to issues with illegal substances. 

A medical professional, Dr Marshall, conducted an analysis of the appellant and concluded that he presented a high risk to society, particularly his expressions about taking revenge on society which raised concerns around possible terrorism related offences. The appellant denied these factors but he was considered unreliable as he suffered from a rare combination of substantial autism spectrum and psychopathic traits.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence there was any truth or actual intention to act on his desires. In fact, it was submitted that he attended the hospital to seek mental health assistance. 

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Pentland began: “It is clear from the comprehensive risk assessments carried out that the appellant presents a particularly high risk to public safety. Numerous risk factors have been identified. There are very few protective factors. He has been assessed as presenting a high risk of carrying out a killing spree or mass murder and of acting as a lone terrorist.The risk is such that it will not be materially mitigated by an extended sentence, particularly given that the appellant has limited capacity or motivation to comply with appropriate management. He will require close management, supervision and treatment in prison for the foreseeable future. It may never be safe to release him. The court is entirely satisfied that the risk criteria are met and that an order for lifelong restriction must be made.”

The High Court quashed the extended sentence imposed by the sentencing judge and imposed an order for lifelong restriction, with a punishment part of 2 years.