Paul-Slack, R. v

In sentencing for wilful neglect of a vulnerable person, culpability must reflect the offender’s individual role. A manager who fails to report a superior’s ill-treatment is not necessarily equally culpable with the superior who carried it out or created a wider climate of fear.

Where the offender was convicted of a single failure to report misconduct, is of good character, faces loss of career, and has served substantial time before the appeal, an immediate custodial sentence may be manifestly excessive. A suspended sentence may be sufficient, although time already served can justify substituting a shorter immediate sentence.

The appellant, assistant manager of a local-authority day-care service, was convicted at the Crown Court at Sheffield of one count of wilful neglect under section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. She had witnessed her manager drag a vulnerable service user from a dining room but did not report the incident, despite her safeguarding duty.

She was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. Her co-accused, who had committed ill-treatment against several service users, received six months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the judge had insufficiently distinguished their roles and had not given adequate weight to the lengthy delay before conviction.

1. Appeal allowed. The four-month sentence was quashed and a sentence of 54 days’ imprisonment was substituted.

2. The correct appellate question was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The appellant’s failure to report serious misconduct by her superior was a serious dereliction of duty and breach of trust. Safeguarding procedures must command the confidence of vulnerable service users and their families.

3. However, the sentence did not properly reflect the materially different roles of the appellant and her co-accused. The co-accused had committed the ill-treatment and had been convicted in relation to several service users. The appellant was to be sentenced for one incident of failing to report misconduct by her superior. The sentencing remarks wrongly suggested that both were equally culpable for the climate of fear at the centre.

4. The appellant was 57, of good character, and likely to lose her career in the care sector. A suspended sentence order would have been sufficient. Since she had already served the equivalent of 54 days, the court substituted that immediate sentence rather than imposing a suspended sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — By [2021] EWCA Crim 671, allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the four-month sentence and substituted 54 days’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Sheffield — On 22 December 2020, convicted the appellant of wilful neglect under section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. On 19 March 2021, imposed four months’ imprisonment.