B, R. v

In sentencing sustained physical cruelty towards highly vulnerable children, a court may place substantial weight on the number of victims, the duration of the conduct, the seriousness of the injuries, and the offender’s failure to seek available help. Where those aggravating features place the offending at the boundary of overlapping guideline categories, a custodial starting point at or just above the higher range may be permissible.

A sentencing judge should identify the credit allowed for a guilty plea. A sentence is not excessive merely because it has severe personal consequences for the offender where it properly reflects the gravity of the offending.

The appellant, a former foster carer, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Leeds to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and four offences of cruelty to persons under 16. The offences concerned four children in his care, all of whom had special needs, and involved repeated physical maltreatment over about ten months.

On 16 June 2011, the Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences, producing a total of 18 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence with leave of the single judge. He submitted that the conduct was not sadistic, arose when he could no longer cope, and had already cost him everything. The central issue was whether the total sentence was excessive.

Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was not excessive.

1. The sentencing judge was entitled to regard the offending as falling on the border between the second and third levels of the applicable sentencing guidelines. The apparent pre-plea starting point, at or just above two years’ imprisonment, was within the range properly open to the judge.

2. The court could not determine precisely what credit had been given for the late guilty plea. A sentencing judge should state the credit allowed. On the facts, however, a 20 per cent discount was an available and appropriate assessment. The appellant had initially denied the offences and attributed the injuries to accidents. His guilty plea had also initially been made conditional upon no prosecution of his wife.

3. The aggravating features justified the sentence. There were four child victims, the conduct continued for about ten months, and the injuries were significant. The children were at the extreme end of vulnerability. Help was available to the appellant, but he did not seek it.

4. The absence of sadism and the severe consequences for the appellant did not render the sentence disproportionate. The sentence was necessarily severe given the sustained abuse of vulnerable children entrusted to his care.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2011] EWCA Crim 2566.
• Crown Court at Leeds: following guilty pleas, imposed concurrent sentences on 16 June 2011, resulting in a total of 18 months’ imprisonment.