Maximiliano Moreno, 22, received an Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR) with a minimum term of 32 months for assault with intent to rape, and a concurrent 18-month sentence for three other charges. The Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR) is a permanent sentence, meaning individuals sentenced to an OLR will be monitored for risk for their entire lives. This sentence, which can only be imposed by the high courts in Scotland, is intended to protect the public from the risk of serious harm. He contended that his youth and lack of prior offenses warranted an extended sentence instead of an OLR.
The appeal was heard by Lord Justice General, Lord Carloway, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, and Lord Beckett, with Ogg representing the appellant and Gill KC representing the Crown.
Background of Case:
On June 21, 2022, the victim, a 20-year-old woman, was walking home when Moreno followed and attacked her in a secluded area. He placed his forearm around her neck, choking her until she managed to escape and took photos of him. Moreno abandoned a rucksack containing suspicious items, including cable ties, pliers, and condoms. Police later found him with a kitchen knife in his pocket.
A risk assessment by Dr.Baird highlighted Moreno’s concerning behaviour, suggesting he posed a medium to high risk and had never faced consequences for his actions before.
Trial Judge’s Conclusion:
The trial judge determined that Moreno posed an enduring risk due to his lack of explanation for his actions and the preparations he made. Moreno’s counsel argued that his age, lack of previous convictions, and early guilty plea indicated that the criteria for an OLR were not met.
Court’s Decision:
Delivering the court’s opinion, Lord Beckett emphasized that the trial judge had to assess the risk Moreno posed to the public. The items Moreno possessed indicated his intent to control and assault his victim. Despite Moreno’s youth and potential for rehabilitation, the need to protect the public was paramount. Dr.Baird noted some optimism about Moreno’s potential response to confinement and rehabilitation.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the trial judge was correct in determining that the risk criteria for an OLR were met, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.