header-logo header-logo

Judges must consider interests of child when sending mothers to prison

16 May 2021
Issue: 7933 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
MPs and peers have called for a statutory duty on judges to consider the interests of the child when sentencing mothers

The Joint Committee on Human Rights tabled five new clauses to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill last week, in its report, ‘Children of mothers in prison and the right to family life: The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill’.

The new clauses would require judges to consider pre-sentence reports including information about any children concerned before sentencing a mother. Judges would be required to take into account the best interests of the child, consider the impact on a child of a custodial sentence, and consider the impact on a child of not granting bail.

There would also be a requirement on the Home Secretary to gather and publish data on how many children are born in prison and how many children are separated from their mother in prison.

The committee criticised the failure of government to capture basic data about primary carers in prison and their dependent children as a ‘blatant disregard’ for the rights of the child and their parents’ right to family life. It had called on the government repeatedly to collect this data yet the government did not have it.

Harriet Harman MP, chair of the committee, said: ‘A young child’s separation from its mother when she’s sent to prison risks lifelong damage to that crucial relationship.

‘Yet, too often, the child is invisible in the court process. This must change. Most mothers who are in prison have committed non-violent crimes. And it’s appalling that there’s so little concern for children that the government doesn’t even know how many children are suffering separation from their mother by imprisonment.

‘There will be much backing from MPs from all parties for these law changes proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.’

The committee highlighted that, when a parent with a dependent child is sentenced, the Art 8 rights of both parent and child is engaged therefore the court should ensure the child’s right to a family life is interfered with to the extent that is both necessary and proportionate. The committee said it failed to see how the bets interests of the child were being sufficiently considered if they were not prioritised when a parent was sentenced.

Issue: 7933 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll