header-logo header-logo

08 March 2023
Issue: 8016 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Child law
printer mail-detail

Sentencing those who harm children

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

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