Sheriff Dickson has fiercely criticised the "nameless officials" within Scottish Justice responsible for the early release of Jason Jarvie, who committed a series of vandalism offences after being released less than a quarter of the way through his sentence.

"At a time when society was entitled to expect that the court's 15 month sentence would allow some respite from your repeated criminal activities, when you should have been incarcerated and innocent homeowners should have been protected from your mindless behaviour, some nameless official has chosen to ignore a judicial decision, to turn an apparent blind eye to your past record of ignoring curfews and to allow you the freedom to damage the property of somebody you did not know.," Dickson said.

"There can be no doubt that had you remained in the young offenders' Institution for the time selected by the Sheriff, this crime could not have been committed,"

"I and every other Sheriff can no longer give any assurance to the public that they are going to be protected for any particular period if our decisions can be overruled by a person who has neither heard the facts of the case nor had any input to the judicial decision to select a particular length of custody."

Jason Jarvie had pled guilty to causing malicious damage to a house in Airdrie on the 1st October 2007 while on probation and subject to a home curfew order.

Sheriff Dickson's full summary given in Airdrie Sheriff Court can be read below.

----------------------
"On 14th March 2007 you were sentenced in this court to a total of 15 months detention in relation to a series of crimes including violence, dishonesty, public disorder, failure to attend court, drugs misuse and committing offences on bail.

Your record shows that on previous occasions courts have tried to curb your criminal activities by making restriction of liberty orders; you have repeatedly breached them.

Notwithstanding the sheriff's sentence of 15 months, you were allowed out after 41/2 months on 3rd August 2007 on a home curfew order. In view of your past disregard for a requirement that you remain within a house, it can have come as little surprise to anybody that you defied this order also.

At a time when society was entitled to expect that the court's 15 month sentence would allow some respite from your repeated criminal activities, when you should have been incarcerated and innocent homeowners should have been protected from your mindless behaviour, some nameless official has chosen to ignore a judicial decision, to turn an apparent blind eye to your past record of ignoring curfews and to allow you the freedom to damage the property of somebody you did not know.

There can be no doubt that had you remained in the young offenders' Institution for the time selected by the Sheriff, this crime could not have been committed.

I and every other Sheriff can no longer give any assurance to the public that they are going to be protected for any particular period if our decisions can be overruled by a person who has neither heard the facts of the case nor had any input to the judicial decision to select a particular length of custody."