HMA v Richard Fleming 2019

Mr Fleming has had his appeal against sentence rejected after being sentenced to an extended sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery. Mr Fleming was found guilty of carrying out a heist at a luxury Scottish hotel along with his co accused.

A number of weapons were used during the theft. The sum stolen was around half a million pounds as he stole 50 Rolex watches. The appellant stated the sentence was excessive, however the Appeal court did not agree and stated the Trial Judge had not erred.

The appellant was given a sentence of three years for a house breaking with intent charge and in respect of the armed robbery the trial judge imposed an extended sentence of 18 years, with a custodial sentence of 15 years and an extension period of three years. The appellant argued that the sentences in themselves, and taken together, were excessive.

However, after hearing of the appellant’s previous record, having already spend 9 years in prison for firearms offence with Appeal Court did not agree. Lord Glennie stated in delivering the Appeal courts verdict: “We can see no difficulty with the trial judge’s approach in sentencing for these three offences at Gleneagles and we are not persuaded that the sentence of 15 years for those offences is excessive.

No separate point was taken as to the extension period of three years. So far as concerns the incidents to which the accused pled guilty, namely the housebreaking on 12 June and a third charge of loitering with intent to commit theft, the trial judge imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment. Having regard to the accused’s record, we cannot find any fault with that sentence.”