header-logo header-logo

12 August 2022
Issue: 7991 / Categories: Legal News , Family , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Child cruelty sentences raised

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll