ER, R. v

A sentence for child cruelty must be based on the particular offences admitted or proved. It cannot punish a defendant for a wider pattern of alleged abuse, deficiencies in parenting, or emotional harm that the admitted incidents did not cause.

The sentencing category and term must reflect the basis of plea, the nature of each incident, injury actually caused and relevant mitigation. A broader and more serious narrative cannot displace those limits.

The appellant pleaded guilty to four offences of cruelty to a person under 16, contrary to section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The counts concerned incidents involving two of her children. Only one caused physical injury. Five further counts were not pursued and were left on the file.

His Honour Judge David Wyn Morgan imposed concurrent terms of 18 months’ immediate imprisonment. He treated the offending as a prolonged series of abuse which had caused serious psychological harm, and sentenced by reference to the more serious sentencing category.

The appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether the judge had sentenced her for the four admitted incidents or, impermissibly, for a wider pattern of alleged conduct and its consequences.

1. Appeal allowed. The court substituted concurrent sentences of five months’ imprisonment for the concurrent sentences of 18 months, securing the appellant’s immediate release.
2. A defendant must be sentenced only for offences of which they have been convicted or to which they have pleaded guilty. The appellant could not be punished for other alleged offences, for being an inadequate parent, or for an inability generally to control her temper.
3. The judge’s premise was wrong because he sentenced on the footing of years of abuse causing long-term psychological harm. The admitted counts did not themselves explain that harm. They were symptoms of a wider and unhappy family situation, rather than its proven cause.
4. The sentence had to reflect the written basis of plea and the particular incidents. Two incidents were about eight years old. Only one caused physical injury. The remaining incidents, while significant, could be viewed as excessive chastisement beyond proper bounds. Properly assessed, the offending fell within the less serious sentencing category rather than the category selected by the judge.
5. The court also accepted that there was some remorse and a proper basis for saying that some allegations had been exaggerated. Taking all relevant circumstances together, continued imprisonment served no valuable purpose. The substituted five-month sentence was therefore appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted five months’ imprisonment: [2012] EWCA Crim 2122.
• Sentencing court: His Honour Judge David Wyn Morgan imposed concurrent sentences of 18 months’ immediate imprisonment for four offences of child cruelty. The lower-court citation is not stated in the judgment.