The heartbroken widow of Elgin bus driver Keith Rollinson has hit out after his teen killer was granted the right to appeal his sentence.
Mum-of-two Susan Rollinson says she “has a life sentence without Keith” after her husband died following a brutal attack at Elgin Bus Station last February.
A 16-year-old boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, admitted killing the 58-year-old former RAF electrical engineer, who later died in Dr Grays Hospital.
The boy, who was 15 at the time of the killing, was given a four-year and four-month long sentence in November for culpable homicide.
He is now set to appeal his sentence on January 14 2025.
According to current sentencing guidelines, if someone is found guilty of a crime, they can seek permission to appeal against their conviction, sentence or both.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) can also do this on behalf of victims’ families who seek harsher sentences – but legal precedent suggests it’s rare for an appeal of this nature to pass.
His widow Susan asked COPFS to appeal his sentence as it was ‘unduly lenient’ – but this was rejected.
Susan has since accused the public authority, who met with the Rollinson family to explain the decision, of failing victims.
Keith Rollinson’s widow ‘feels like family are being treated like criminals, not victims’
She told the Daily Mail: “It just seems he’s getting everything he wants, and they’re not fighting for us.
“I knew that any amount of time they gave him wouldn’t bring Keith back, but all I wanted was for Keith to get justice.
“His killer will be out before he is 20, enjoying himself, and no one will ever know.
“So, who’s being punished here? I’ve got a life sentence without Keith.”
She added: ‘I tried to get an appeal, but it’s like you’re up against a brick wall. We feel that we’re the criminals, not the victims.’
A spokesman for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said: “We met recently with the family of Mr Rollinson to listen to their concerns and explain the factors which judges are legally obliged to take into account for sentencing.
“Senior Crown Counsel fully respected the views they expressed while also evaluating whether the strict requirements, as set out by the Appeal Court, for an unduly lenient appeal were met.
“The decision not to appeal the sentence, which was not taken lightly, was discussed with Mr Rollinson’s loved ones.”
Conversation