R v BCN

In sentencing for a serious assault on a child, the court must stand back from the guideline calculation and give proper weight to substantial post-offence rehabilitation and the effect of immediate custody on the child victim. Those matters may justify a lower sentence within the applicable harm category where the child has recovered and the offender has established a genuine relationship with the child.

A sentence of two years’ imprisonment may properly be suspended where there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, strong personal mitigation and immediate custody would significantly harm the child victim. A rehabilitation activity requirement may reinforce the punitive and rehabilitative purposes of the order.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne to inflicting grievous bodily harm on his seven-month-old daughter. He caused a spiral fracture to her femur, delayed seeking medical treatment and initially gave false accounts. On 21 February 2025, HHJ Doig imposed 27 months’ immediate imprisonment.

The appellant had no previous convictions. Since the offence he had undertaken therapeutic work, had not reoffended, and had developed regular unsupervised contact with his daughter after Family Court proceedings. He appealed with the leave of the single judge, contending that insufficient weight had been given to rehabilitation, personal mitigation and the effect of custody upon his daughter.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of 27 months’ immediate imprisonment was quashed and replaced by two years’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, with a rehabilitation activity requirement of 30 days.

2. The sentencing judge correctly placed the offence in category A2 under the applicable guideline. The infant victim’s age made her plainly vulnerable, and the fractured femur was a grave injury. The aggravating features were also correctly identified: the appellant’s significant breach of trust as the child’s father, the delay in obtaining treatment, and his lack of frankness with medical staff.

3. The offence remained serious and could only be met by a custodial sentence. However, the child had made an excellent recovery without lasting physical effects. The judge could therefore have moved down within category 2 before balancing aggravation and mitigation.

4. The appellant’s rehabilitation required greater weight. By sentence, he had addressed personal difficulties, had not reoffended, and had established a genuine and developing relationship with his daughter. The consequences of immediate imprisonment for the child, who was also the victim, were especially significant. The failure to give those matters sufficient weight made the 27-month sentence manifestly excessive.

5. A sentence after trial of 32 months, reduced by 25 per cent for the guilty plea, produced two years’ imprisonment. Suspension was appropriate because there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, strong personal mitigation, and immediate custody would harm the child. In view of the three months already served, unpaid work was unnecessary; a 30-day rehabilitation activity requirement should instead support further reflection and rehabilitation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a suspended sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 723.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: On 21 February 2025, HHJ Doig sentenced the appellant to 27 months’ immediate imprisonment following his guilty plea.