Imagine you’re a judge: the wig, the stern expression, the lot (some of you will find this easier than others). Now imagine there’s a man in the dock called Andrew Wilson. A jury has found him guilty of serious assault and it’s your job to deliver the sentence. Opinion polls suggest most of us would say prison every time, lock him up. But faced with all the facts, the witnesses, the mitigating factors, the aggravating factors, what would you do in reality? The answer matters.

The case of Andrew Wilson, and the chance to play the judge, appears this week on the website of the Scottish Sentencing Council. The council is the organisation that draws up the guidelines for courts and they’ve uploaded a video on the Wilson case as a way, they say, of trying to provide more insight into the process. I think it’s also clear they’re trying to do something else as well with their videos on sentencing, but we’ll get on to that later, and whether it’s the right thing to do.

First, more details. For the avoidance of doubt, Andrew Wilson is not a real person but his case has been designed to be realistic and typical of the kind that comes up before the courts. Basically, the facts are that his neighbour Chris Robertson complained about loud music Wilson was playing late at night. Wilson’s response was to attack Mr Robertson with a baseball bat. Not only was Mr Robertson seriously hurt, he was forced to take time off work and is self-employed so lost money. The case has come before a jury, they’ve found Wilson guilty, now it’s time for sentencing.

What the sentencing council asks you to do is look at a video which outlines all the details of the case and features interviews with some of the people involved in the process: judges, prosecutors, social workers, and so on. There’s also an explanation of........

© Herald Scotland