Haigh, R v

Where a parent is convicted of manslaughter of a young child, sentence must reflect the particular mitigating and aggravating circumstances. A custodial term within the accepted three-to-five-year bracket may be appropriate where there is no credit for a guilty plea.

An offender may satisfy the dangerousness criteria where an inability to cope under stress creates a significant risk of serious harm to future children, even without an intention deliberately to harm them. Where public protection can adequately be achieved by an extended sentence, imprisonment for public protection is unnecessary.

The appellant had received a life sentence for murder, with a minimum term of ten years, after causing the death of her son. In a contemporaneous conviction appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the murder conviction. It therefore had to resentence her for manslaughter.

The court considered the substantial mitigation identified by the trial judge, including the absence of planning, the appellant’s personal difficulties, depression, learning difficulties, good character and the delay since the events. It also considered a pre-sentence report which assessed a significant risk of serious harm to children in the appellant’s care.

The central questions were whether the dangerousness criteria were met and, if so, whether an extended sentence rather than imprisonment for public protection was appropriate.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent necessary to quash the life sentence for murder. Following the quashing of the murder conviction, the court resentenced the appellant for manslaughter.

2. The dangerousness criteria were satisfied. The pre-sentence report identified a significant risk of serious harm to children in the appellant’s care. The material risk arose from her inability to cope when under stress, which could have disastrous consequences. It did not depend upon a finding that she would deliberately intend to harm a child.

3. The court rejected the submission that the risk was confined in practice to hypothetical future children whose safety would necessarily be secured by the authorities. There remained a real possibility that the appellant might have children and cause them harm.

4. Having accepted that comparable parental manslaughter cases indicated a sentencing bracket of three to five years’ custody, the court fixed the appropriate determinate term at four years. It gave full weight to the strong mitigation and to the considerable delay.

5. Imprisonment for public protection was unnecessary because an extended sentence would sufficiently protect the public. Since the appropriate custodial term was at least four years, the statutory threshold for an extended sentence was met. The court imposed an extended sentence of nine years, comprising four years’ custody and a five-year extension period. It directed that 473 days already served should count, subject to administrative correction if necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): quashed the murder conviction in a contemporaneous conviction appeal, quashed the resulting life sentence, and resentenced the appellant for manslaughter.
• Crown Court: convicted the appellant of murder and imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of ten years.