Regina v “ALS”

In sentencing serious child cruelty, the guideline starting point must be increased substantially where there are multiple high-culpability features, category 1 harm, deliberate concealment and relevant previous convictions. Where concurrent sentences are imposed, the principal sentence must reflect the overall seriousness of all the offending, while avoiding double counting.

The maximum one-third reduction for a guilty plea is confined to an indication of guilt at the first stage of proceedings. An offender who gives no indication in the magistrates’ court and does not promptly enter pleas in the Crown Court cannot expect more than a one-quarter reduction.

The Attorney General referred the offender’s sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The offender had pleaded guilty to three offences of cruelty to his 13-year-old daughter, contrary to section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

On 15 December 2021, the Crown Court at Manchester imposed a total sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment. The principal count concerned sustained and serious physical cruelty. Associated counts concerned prolonged ill-treatment and failure to obtain medical treatment for injuries inflicted by the offender.

The issue was whether the judge had given adequate weight to culpability, aggravating features and the timing of the guilty pleas.

1. The court granted leave to refer the sentence and held that it was unduly lenient. It quashed the sentence on the principal count and substituted six years’ imprisonment. The concurrent sentences on the other counts remained unchanged, producing a total sentence of six years.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to give significant weight to the offender’s genuine remorse, personal mitigation, mental-health difficulties and the pressures of lockdown. Those matters could not, however, justify a final pre-plea sentence below the guideline starting point for the principal offence.

3. At least four high-culpability characteristics were present: prolonged and multiple serious cruelty, very significant force, use of a weapon, and deliberate disregard for the victim’s welfare. The attempted strangulation was particularly serious. The harm plainly fell within category 1. The principal concurrent sentence also had to reflect the overall seriousness of the associated offences, including keeping the child away from school to conceal injuries and failing to secure medical treatment.

4. Relevant previous convictions, including domestic violence, and deliberate concealment were aggravating features. The latter required care to avoid double counting because it overlapped with the associated offences. Even allowing the mitigation its greatest proper weight, the least total pre-plea sentence commensurate with the offending was eight years’ imprisonment.

5. Under the Sentencing Council guideline on reduction for a guilty plea, a one-third reduction is reserved for an indication of guilt at the first stage of proceedings. The offender gave no indication in the magistrates’ court and did not immediately enter pleas in the Crown Court. The maximum proper reduction was therefore one quarter, reducing eight years to six.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—on an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, granted leave and increased the total sentence to six years’ imprisonment: [2022] EWCA Crim 401.
• Crown Court at Manchester (Minshull Street)—on 15 December 2021, imposed a total sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment for three offences of child cruelty.