header-logo header-logo

Sentencing those who harm children

08 March 2023
Issue: 8016 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Child law
printer mail-detail
Convictions for child cruelty offences will lead to tougher punishments under revised sentencing guidelines.

The Sentencing Council published updated guidelines this week, reflecting the increased maximum penalties for child cruelty offences introduced under the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act 2022. The Act raised the maximum penalties from ten to 14 years in prison for cruelty, from ten to 14 years for causing or allowing a child to suffer serious harm, and from 14 years to life imprisonment for causing or allowing a child to die.

The council consulted on proposals to introduce a new very high level of culpability to capture the worst cases, which would help the courts take a consistent approach to sentencing. However, the guidelines do not change the factors of the high, medium and lesser culpability levels, the harm factors or the sentence levels for cases not falling into the new very high culpability category.

Under the revised guidelines, the sentencing range for causing or allowing a child to die goes up to 18 years in prison, and up to 12 years for causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm.

Sentences for cruelty to a child including ill-treatment, abandonment or neglect range up to 12 years in prison.

The revised guidelines come into effect on 1 April 2023. The new maximum penalties will apply only to offences committed on or after 28 June 2022.

Sentencing Council chairman Lord Justice William Davis said: ‘Child cruelty offences are by their very nature targeted against particularly vulnerable people—children—and it is important that courts have up-to-date guidelines that reflect the penalties set by Parliament.

‘The revisions will ensure that the courts can reflect the new penalties consistently and transparently and will have available to them the full range of possible sentences when dealing with the worst cases of child cruelty.’

Issue: 8016 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Child law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

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