The petitioner was listed as a Crown witness in an indictment containing a number of serious charges involving firearms. Those indicted were James Scott MacDonald and Raymond Anderson, Senior. The indictment was brought to trial at the High Court in Glasgow in March 2008 and the petitioner was called to give evidence by the Crown on 6, 7 and 11 March 2008. Due to certain problems with the jury in that trial, it was deserted pro loco et tempore on 11 March 2008, during the course of the cross-examination of the petitioner. During that cross-examination the petitioner failed to identify Raymond Anderson as the person he was referring to in evidence. He was warned about his behaviour in the witness box on a number of occasions by the trial judge, particularly in relation to prevaricating and telling lies. At the second trial later in March 2008 the petitioner again gave evidence as a Crown witness and during his examination-in-chief, he admitted that he had lied on oath at the previous trial. During the course of lengthy cross-examination the petitioner admitted that he had lied about various matters during the course of his evidence at the earlier trial. At the conclusion of his evidence, the trial judge ordained that the petitioner should seek legal advice on the question of whether he had committed a contempt of court and, subsequently, on 1 June 2009, the petitioner accepted that he had been in contempt of court in respect of his perjury and prevarication at the first trial and the trial judge sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment for one year. Here the petitioner brought the petition for the purpose of appealing against that sentence, it being the only mechanism where by such an appeal could be brought. Here on behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that, albeit he accepted he had told lies and prevaricated at the earlier trial, at the second trial he had co-operated fully and identified the accused. Further, an affidavit from an Assistant Chief Constable with Strathclyde Police was tendered which expressed the opinion that, were the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner to stand, that may have an adverse effect with regard to reluctant witnesses who may be dissuaded from giving evidence in serious cases in the future or providing information to the authorities. Here the court considered whether the sentence of one years’ imprisonment was excessive.