CP, R. v

For grave cruelty to a child involving repeated applications of severe force and multiple fractures, an immediate custodial sentence is justified. A suspended sentence requires rare and exceptional circumstances. The offender’s efforts to address temper control, family rehabilitation, and an asserted benefit to the child did not meet that high threshold.

Delay causing personal hardship may justify a reduction in sentence, but it does not make immediate custody inappropriate where the offending remains very serious and custody is in the public interest.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Swindon to cruelty to his infant daughter. He accepted that he had handled her roughly and used inappropriate force, although he did not intend injury or know how each injury had occurred.

The child had sustained eleven fractures, injuries consistent with shaking, and a subdural haemorrhage. The injuries resulted from repeated severe force over several weeks. The judge imposed two years’ imprisonment, reduced from three years to reflect the long delay before trial.

The appellant appealed against sentence. He submitted that the sentence should be suspended because he had addressed his temper and was being rehabilitated into the family. The central issue was whether those matters were exceptional enough to displace immediate custody.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judgment of the court, delivered by Hodge J, held that the sentencing judge was right to impose an immediate sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

2. A suspended sentence for offending of this gravity required rare exceptional circumstances. The appellant’s work on temper control, the proposed reunification of the family, and the suggestion that it would assist the child did not approach that standard. The care arrangements and supervised rehabilitation did not alter that conclusion.

3. The court considered R v Graham [1997] 2 Cr App R(S) 264. It was not a guideline case. Although there were factual similarities, the different arrangements for the father’s contact with the children meant that it did not affect the present appeal.

4. The delay of about two and a half years before the case came to court had caused real personal hardship. It properly explained the reduction from the three years which the judge would otherwise have imposed to two years. It did not undermine the need for custody.

5. The injuries were very serious. Eleven fractures and head injuries had been inflicted through eight applications of severe force over a significant period. Despite the fortunate absence of apparent long-term physical harm, the offending merited custody and an immediate custodial sentence was in the public interest.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant’s sentence appeal was dismissed: [2006] EWCA Crim 3019.
• Crown Court at Swindon: On 21 July 2006 the appellant pleaded guilty to cruelty to a person under 16. On 1 September 2006 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.