Larkin, R. v

In sentencing for the manslaughter of a baby or young child, the sentence must reflect the gravity of an unlawful act causing death. The appropriate range remains wide because culpability depends on the gravity of the violence and the offender’s intention. A sentence must reflect the culpability established by the facts, including aggravating features and personal mitigation. It is excessive if it attributes a materially higher degree of culpability than the evidence supports.

The appellant was convicted at Sheffield Crown Court of manslaughter after his eleven-and-a-half-week-old son died from a head injury caused by violent shaking. He was also convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The trial judge imposed 12 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and a concurrent year for the conspiracy.

The judge found that the appellant had lost self-control through frustration, exasperation or anger. She rejected both a jealousy motive and an intention to cause injury just short of grievous bodily harm. The appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether the total term overstated his culpability when compared with the aggravating and mitigating features and comparable sentencing authorities.

1. Appeal allowed. The 12-year sentence for manslaughter was excessive. It reflected a degree of culpability not established by the facts.

2. Sentences for manslaughter of a small child cover a wide range. The gravity of the violence and the offender’s intention are highly relevant to culpability. The court treated the approach in Burridge [2010] EWCA Crim 2847 and Attorney General’s Reference No 125 of 2010 (Draper) [2011] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 97 as materially helpful, while recognising that each case turns on its facts.

3. The aggravating features were the extreme youth and known vulnerability of the baby, the lies told to the police, and the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Those matters had to be weighed against the absence of an intention to cause injury approaching grievous bodily harm, the relatively short-lived incident, the absence of previous violence, and the appellant’s otherwise caring and devoted parenting.

4. The trial judge had made findings favourable to the appellant but gave no explanation for imposing a substantially higher sentence than those imposed in the comparable cases. The court quashed the 12-year sentence and substituted eight years’ imprisonment, which included the criminality of the conspiracy. The concurrent one-year sentence on that count remained. The total sentence was therefore eight years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted an eight-year sentence for manslaughter.
• Sheffield Crown Court Following conviction by a jury on 9 November 2016, imposed 12 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and a concurrent one-year sentence for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.