Criminal Note of Appeal Against Sentence:- The appellant was convicted after trial on indictment at Dundee Sheriff Court on charges of:- (1) being concerned in the supply of heroin contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; (2) obstructing officers of Tayside Police in execution of their duty contrary to section 23(4)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and (3) being in possession of a quantity of cannabis resin contrary to section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. All of the offences were committed while the appellant was on bail and he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on the supply charge of which period 6 month was attributed to the bail aggravation. On the obstruction charge he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, three months attributable to the bail aggravation. The appellant was admonished in regard to the possession of cannabis charge. The two sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run consecutively. The appellant lodged a note of appeal against sentence which contained two grounds:- (1) the sentences were excessive having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the personal circumstances of the appellant; and (2) the sheriff should have imposed concurrent sentences of imprisonment and not consecutive sentences. Leave to appeal was granted and on 27 June 2008 an interlocutor was pronounced remitting the appeal to a bench of three judges for "determination ... of the maximum sentence competently available to a sentencer in respect of bail aggravations on a complaint/indictment containing more than one bail aggravated charge ..." Here it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the maximum period of imprisonment which could be imposed in respect of a bail aggravation was six months and the six months' extension to the sentencer's maximum powers was the maximum available to the sentencer for distribution over the totality of the aggravated charges. Accordingly, it was submitted that the imposition of nine months for the bail aggravations in the present case by the sheriff was incompetent. Here the court considered whether the sentence imposed was incompetent and also whether the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent that the sentences should have been imposed concurrently.