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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll