TC, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant pleaded guilty to one count of causing or allowing a child, her son, to suffer serious physical harm contrary to section 5(1) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. The child was approximately three months old at the time of the offence, which occurred on 26/27 November 2017. The Applicant was charged jointly with the biological father, the Co-Accused. The child had been placed on the Child Protection Register at birth and was subject to a Child Protection Plan that prohibited the Applicant and the Co-Accused from having contact with each other or being alone with the child.

The Co-Accused had been charged with causing grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 but ultimately pleaded guilty to the section 5(1) offence, with the section 20 offence left on the books. The child was found to have multiple bruises and rib fractures, which medical experts concluded were caused by a third party and could not have been self-inflicted.

The Applicant was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment. She sought leave to appeal the sentence, which was initially refused by a Single Judge but later granted by the full court. The court subsequently substituted the custodial sentence with a sentence of 18 months probation, to which the Applicant consented.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting point of 30 months imprisonment for the offence was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle given the circumstances of the case.
2. Whether the sentencing judge adequately accounted for the Applicant’s personal mitigation and the delay in concluding the case.
3. The appropriateness of substituting a custodial sentence with a community-based disposal such as probation.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The starting point of 30 months imprisonment was excessive and incorrect in principle.
• Inadequate allowance was made for personal mitigation and the significant delay in sentencing.
• Non-custodial sentencing options were appropriate given the Applicant’s vulnerabilities and engagement with support services.
• Exceptional circumstances justified suspension of the custodial sentence if a non-custodial sentence was deemed inappropriate.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution accepted the offence was a single episode of violence, not prolonged or multiple incidents.
• The injuries fell at the lower end of serious harm and medical assistance was sought promptly.
• The Applicant was not considered a perpetrator of the injuries and had intervened to protect the child.
• The offence carried a maximum sentence of 10 years, and deliberate breaches of child protection plans resulting in serious harm generally require immediate imprisonment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Nemet & Repasi [2018] EWCA Crim 2195	Sentencing starting point for causing or allowing serious harm to a child; 36 months following trial for more serious injuries involving multiple applications of force.	The court noted the injuries in the present case were less serious than in Nemet & Repasi, involving a single episode of violence and prompt medical intervention; thus a lower sentence was appropriate.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the difficulty of the sentencing exercise for an offence carrying a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. It emphasized the importance of child protection plans and the general principle that deliberate breaches resulting in serious harm usually require immediate custody. However, the court found that the present case involved a single episode of violence with injuries at the lower end of serious harm, and the Applicant promptly sought medical assistance, demonstrating intervention to protect the child.

The court also considered the Applicant’s personal circumstances, including her vulnerabilities, borderline learning disability, history of domestic abuse, and significant engagement with support services. The delay of almost two years between plea and sentencing was noted as unfortunate and unmitigated, especially given the Applicant’s vulnerabilities.

Medical evidence and prosecution acceptance that the Applicant was not the perpetrator of the injuries were significant. The court gave substantial credit for the Applicant’s actions in protecting the child despite risks of retribution and permanent separation. The court also noted positive reports from prison authorities indicating the Applicant’s constructive engagement and rehabilitation.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded that a custodial sentence was not the most appropriate disposal and that probation with conditions would better support rehabilitation and accountability.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to appeal and substituted the 16-month custodial sentence with an 18-month probation order subject to conditions.

This decision directly affects the Applicant by replacing imprisonment with probation, reflecting the court’s recognition of her personal mitigation, prompt intervention to protect the child, and progress towards rehabilitation. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court applied established sentencing principles to the specific facts and circumstances of this case.