The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by L.H. against the severity of sentences imposed for two counts of reckless endangerment of children. The court found no error in the sentencing judge’s decision to impose the terms without suspending any part.
L.H. received five years’ imprisonment on one count and three years on the other, to run concurrently. Five counts of child cruelty were taken into consideration. The appeal was confined to whether some of the prison term should have been suspended to encourage rehabilitation and reduce the risk of reoffending. The appellant did not challenge the headline sentences or the reductions for mitigation.
The judgment said one count concerned failing to seek medical attention for a significant injury to her daughter’s genital area. The other concerned leaving her two young children with her partner, creating a substantial risk of serious harm.
The court recounted evidence that the children, both under three at the time, had suffered injuries. A consultant paediatrician concluded that the daughter had experienced physical and sexual abuse and could face long-term or lifelong consequences. The boy had abrasions and marks described as appearing to be bite marks; when interviewed, he spoke of being bitten by a “monster” and punched at the family home. The judgment also referred to reports describing trauma and likely lasting psychological difficulties for both children.
The appellant’s submissions relied on her partner’s alleged control over her, her mental health and addiction difficulties, remorse, and efforts to engage with treatment and rehabilitation. The respondent argued that, despite those efforts, the sentencing judge had been entitled to conclude that suspension was not warranted. The judgment noted that the appellant had no previous convictions and had engaged in rehabilitation before sentence.
The Court of Appeal said suspending part of a sentence is within the sentencing judge’s discretion, and that it could intervene only if there had been an error in principle. It considered the seriousness of the offending, the late guilty plea, the five additional child-cruelty counts taken into consideration and the mitigation before the sentencing judge.
The court said the sentencing judge had carefully assessed proportionality and had accounted for the appellant’s rehabilitation efforts in the reductions from the headline sentences. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the concurrent five-year and three-year terms in place.