header-logo header-logo

Child cruelty sentences raised

12 August 2022
Issue: 7991 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Tougher sentences for child cruelty could be introduced, along with a higher culpability threshold for the most serious cases, under draft guidelines from the Sentencing Council

The increased penalties reflect new maximum sentences introduced by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Offenders would receive up to 18 years in prison for the offences of ‘causing or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm’, and up to 12 years for ‘cruelty to a child’.

The 2022 Act raised the maximum penalty for ‘causing or allowing a child to die’ from 14 years to life imprisonment and the maximum for ‘physical harm and cruelty’ from ten years to 14 years.

A specific additional category of very high culpability’ would be added to the culpability table, reflecting the approach taken in manslaughter. It would be indicated by ‘the extreme character of one or more culpability B factors and/or a combination of culpability B factors’―culpability B (high culpability) includes ‘prolonged’ or multiple incidents’, ‘gratuitous degradation or sadistic behaviour’, ‘deliberate disregard for the victim’s welfare’, ‘use of a weapon’ or ‘very significant force’.

The Council states the reasons for the additional category are that it ‘considers that the revised maximum penalties were intended by Parliament to capture the worst cases of child cruelty, rather than as a means of increasing sentences imposed across the board.

‘For example, the Council is unaware of any suggestion that sentencing is too low in lower culpability cases where the offender has been coerced, has a mental disorder, took some steps to protect the child, or where the offence resulted from a brief lapse of judgement. More broadly, the Council has not been made aware of any particular concerns about the application of the current guidelines.’

The Council is seeking views on its consultation paper by 27 October. 

Issue: 7991 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll