header-logo header-logo

08 March 2023
Issue: 8016 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Child law
printer mail-detail

Sentencing those who harm children

Convictions for child cruelty offences will lead to tougher punishments under revised sentencing guidelines.

The Sentencing Council published updated guidelines this week, reflecting the increased maximum penalties for child cruelty offences introduced under the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act 2022. The Act raised the maximum penalties from ten to 14 years in prison for cruelty, from ten to 14 years for causing or allowing a child to suffer serious harm, and from 14 years to life imprisonment for causing or allowing a child to die.

The council consulted on proposals to introduce a new very high level of culpability to capture the worst cases, which would help the courts take a consistent approach to sentencing. However, the guidelines do not change the factors of the high, medium and lesser culpability levels, the harm factors or the sentence levels for cases not falling into the new very high culpability category.

Under the revised guidelines, the sentencing range for causing or allowing a child to die goes up to 18 years in prison, and up to 12 years for causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm.

Sentences for cruelty to a child including ill-treatment, abandonment or neglect range up to 12 years in prison.

The revised guidelines come into effect on 1 April 2023. The new maximum penalties will apply only to offences committed on or after 28 June 2022.

Sentencing Council chairman Lord Justice William Davis said: ‘Child cruelty offences are by their very nature targeted against particularly vulnerable people—children—and it is important that courts have up-to-date guidelines that reflect the penalties set by Parliament.

‘The revisions will ensure that the courts can reflect the new penalties consistently and transparently and will have available to them the full range of possible sentences when dealing with the worst cases of child cruelty.’

Issue: 8016 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Child law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll