A WEE COUNTY man, jailed for one of the "worst" domestic abuse cases a sheriff has ever seen, has failed in a bid to have his sentence reduced.

James Brand, 48, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment after pleading guilty to charges of abduction and assault in January.

The horrific details of his crimes were revealed when he appeared for sentencing at Stirling Sheriff Court the following month.

On one occasion, he punched his partner so hard she was left unconscious, with the force of the blow putting her sight at risk.

When she woke, she was covered in blood. Brand let her go to the toilet to clean up, but stayed with her the whole time.

The court was told by fiscal depute Ashleigh Smith: "She was in pain and was sobbing and he told her to be quiet and she thereafter covered her mouth out of fear."

He then prevented her from leaving their home in Alloa, and threatened to get revenge if she contacted police.

Brand eventually let her go to hospital, but made her come up with a fake story as to how she received her injuries first.

Doctors found she had a fractured bone under her eye, and was lucky not to have lost her sight from it.

Numerous other examples of Brand's horrific attacks on his partner were also revealed.

They included an incident where he strangled her while saying he would "f****g kill" her, causing her to black out.

He also threw paint over her, dragged her by the hair, and left her too afraid to comply with a previous bid to prosecute him.

The offences took place on various occasions between March 6 to 8, 2015, and September 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017.

Sheriff William Gilchrist described Brand's crimes as some of the worst domestic offences he had ever dealt with when sentencing him.

However, since then, Brand launched an appeal against his sentence, which was made public by the High Court of Justiciary on May 1.

The appeal had been made on the basis that Brand pleaded guilty to two amended charges on the day of his trial on January 7, 2019.

It was argued by his solicitor that because of the plea, witnesses and jurors had been spared from attending court, thus entitling Brand to a discount on his sentence.

As the sheriff had not permitted that, the pursuers argued he had erred in his decision.

However, those claims were found to be incorrect by the Appeal Court.

Its judgement, written by Lord Turnbull, noted that Brand's solicitor informed Sheriff Gilchrist at the sentencing diet on February 6 that witnesses had attended court on the day of the trial.

That was because the defence had only indicated to prosecutors of their intent to tender a guilty plea at 4.30pm on Friday, January 4, ahead of the scheduled trial date the following Monday.

Although efforts were made, there was not enough time to communicate to witnesses that they did not need to attend court on the day.

The judgement went on to state that during a hearing of the appeal, Brand's solicitor "departed from the proposition that no witnesses were present" on Monday, January 7.

The solicitor was also "not able to offer any support" for the claim that no jurors were in attendance on that date either.

It then stated Sheriff Gilchrist's sentence had taken account of "the whole proceedings" of the case, and found there was "no basis" upon which it could be criticised.

Brand's appeal was refused.