Attorney General's Reference No. 96 of 2005

A sentence for persistent cruelty to a child is unduly lenient where it fails adequately to reflect prolonged and serious ill-treatment, including physical violence, deprivation of food and water, and abuse of a position of trust. A guilty plea, absence of previous convictions and less grave ultimate injury may mitigate sentence, but do not displace the need for a substantial custodial term.

On an Attorney General’s reference, the appellate court may reduce the sentence it would otherwise impose to reflect the principle of double jeopardy, namely the additional burden of being resentenced after the original sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to cruelty to a child under 16. Over about a year, while entrusted with the child’s care, he repeatedly assaulted her, inflicted injuries including cigarette burns, deprived her of food and water, and subjected her to other degrading treatment. He had initially denied the allegations, absconded after arrest, and later pleaded guilty without a written basis of plea.

On 26 August 2005 the Crown Court imposed two years’ imprisonment. The Attorney General sought leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether that sentence sufficiently reflected the seriousness and persistence of the offending, while allowing for mitigation and double jeopardy.

1. Leave was granted and the reference succeeded. The court held that the two-year sentence was unduly lenient. The offending involved persistent ill-treatment of a young child over at least a year. It comprised not only beatings and physical injuries, but also deliberate deprivation of food and water. The offender had been placed in a position of trust.

2. The guilty plea and absence of previous convictions were material mitigation. The court also accepted that the child’s ultimate injuries were not as grave as in some cases. Those matters did not adequately reduce the seriousness of prolonged and purposive cruelty. The minimum sentence properly expected after the guilty plea was about five years’ imprisonment.

3. The court gave effect to the principle of double jeopardy when determining the substituted term. Although a sentence of about five years was appropriate in principle, the proper sentence on the reference was four years’ imprisonment.

4. The offender was also disqualified from working with children under section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000, insofar as that order might be relevant.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—On the Attorney General’s reference, the court granted leave, held the Crown Court sentence unduly lenient, and substituted four years’ imprisonment: [2006] EWCA Crim 114.

• Crown Court—On 26 August 2005, imposed two years’ imprisonment for cruelty to a child under 16.