202403291 B4 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1135

The sentences:

The appellant, now aged 31, had only one previous conviction, for an offence of shoplifting to which she had pleaded guilty in 2022.

At the sentencing hearing, the judge was assisted by a pre-sentence report; a psychiatric report; a psychological report; character references relating to the appellant; letters from the appellant’s two older daughters; and a letter from the appellant herself.

In his sentencing remarks, the judge said that the prosecution case began “in one sense” when C was admitted to hospital at the end of November 2019, and that the charges referred to a period on or before 13 December 2019, but –

“… the clear evidence, made manifest by the description of [C] when she was admitted as being extremely malnourished, create an almost overwhelming inference that she was being deprived of feed before she was finally admitted in November of 2019. Given that once you were unable to see [C] unsupervised, she regained weight very quickly and regained full health very quickly. It’s difficult to conclude otherwise.”

The judge highlighted that the offending was repeated multiple times every day, even in the face of warnings and instructions from nurses. It was, he said deliberate and determined. He considered the issue of dangerousness but held that an extended sentence would not be proportionate.

The judge identified the principal mitigation as being the delay in the case coming to trial; the effect of the appellant’s prosecution and conviction on her relationship with her children; the effect of imprisonment on her mental health; and the loss of her accommodation, support network and pets which would result from her imprisonment. He said, however, that he could not avoid the conclusion that if the appellant’s actions had not been observed by others, her continued activities would have led to C’s serious injury or worse.

Referring to the Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline relating to offences of cruelty to persons under 16, the judge placed the offences into category B1. He held that the offences involved category B high culpability because there were multiple incidents of serious cruelty and a deliberate disregard for C’s welfare. He held there was category 1 serious harm, because the effect on C was very significant in the short term, though she was now flourishing. The starting point was therefore 6 years’ custody, with a range from 4 to 8 years.

The judge also referred to the Sentencing Council’s guideline on sentencing offenders with mental disorders, but observed that there did not appear to be any suggestion that the appellant’s culpability was reduced by a direct link between her mental health problems and her offending.

Taking into account that the appellant had seriously affected the health of her vulnerable child in two different ways, the judge concluded that the appropriate total sentence, before consideration of mitigation, would have been six years’ imprisonment. Reflecting the mitigation which we have summarised, the judge imposed concurrent sentences of 4 years 6 months’ imprisonment.