H, R v

Comparable sentencing decisions provide a broad guide only. They do not create a tariff that displaces the sentencing court’s assessment of the particular offending.

A sentence for gross-neglect manslaughter may properly reflect exceptionally high culpability where prolonged systemic cruelty and starvation caused a child’s death, and there is no mental disorder, coercion, or other personal mitigation. A sentencing judge is not misdirected merely by considering the statutory murder sentencing framework, provided that the sentence imposed is for manslaughter.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Sheffield to manslaughter of her three-year-old daughter and cruelty to her one-year-old son. The daughter died from terminal bronchopneumonia caused by malnourishment after prolonged neglect in severely squalid living conditions.

On 27 June 2008, the Recorder of Sheffield imposed concurrent sentences of 12 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and three years’ imprisonment for child cruelty. The appellant appealed the manslaughter sentence. She relied on three earlier sentencing decisions and contended that, after full credit for her guilty plea, the Recorder had imposed an excessive sentence by starting too high and by referring to Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The central issue was whether the 12-year sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Appeal dismissed. The concurrent sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The authorities relied on by the appellant—R v Watts [2002] 1 Cr App R(S) 228, R v Wright [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 257, and R v Onley [2005] 1 Cr App R(S) 122—gave only a broad sentencing range for their own facts. They did not govern this exceptionally grave case.

3. The offending involved sustained and systemic neglect of two very young children. The deceased had been intermittently deprived of food over a prolonged period and ultimately died after being left without food or water. The court regarded the manslaughter as at the highest level of culpability. The appellant’s personal circumstances supplied no explanation or mitigation: she had no mental illness or relevant psychological disorder, and no coercive or abusive relationship was suggested.

4. The Recorder was entitled to take account of the statutory sentencing framework in Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 when assessing the gravity of the conduct. He had correctly reminded himself that he was sentencing for manslaughter, not murder. The framework did not cause him to adopt an erroneous starting point.

5. Although full credit had to be allowed for the timely guilty plea, it did not make the resulting sentence excessive. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant’s appeal against her 12-year sentence for manslaughter was dismissed: [2009] EWCA Crim 397 .
• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 27 June 2008, the Recorder of Sheffield sentenced the appellant to concurrent terms of 12 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and three years’ imprisonment for child cruelty.