- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
WSE, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at [The City] of cruelty to a person under 16 and causing or allowing serious harm to a child. She was acquitted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. [1]
She was initially sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment on each count, concurrently. After it emerged that she was pregnant, the sentence was varied to 21 months’ imprisonment. The pregnancy was later found to be ectopic and required surgery. [2][3]
The offences concerned serious injuries sustained by the Applicant’s 15-week-old child, including brain and spinal bleeding, retinal bleeding, a torn lip frenulum and a broken collarbone. The medical evidence indicated that the injuries were intentional and most likely caused by non-accidental shaking. [4][5]
The Applicant appealed against sentence on amended grounds. The Registrar referred the application to the Full Court and granted a Representation Order. [3]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence of immediate imprisonment was wrong in principle in light of the Applicant’s personal circumstances and the factors favouring suspension. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
- Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or otherwise arguably unlawful in light of the Applicant’s subsequent ectopic pregnancy, surgery and conduct in custody. [13][14][15][16]
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Arguments
- The Applicant relied on her previous good character and the absence of further offending since 2023. [7][8]
- She relied on having been a victim of domestic violence and on a chronic back injury making imprisonment unusually arduous. [9][10]
- She relied on her pregnancy, subsequent ectopic pregnancy and surgery while in custody. [11]
- She argued that, given time spent in custody and the traumatic events, the court could impose a conditional discharge. [12]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Price [2023] EWCA Crim 1060 | The decision whether to suspend imprisonment is evaluative and cannot be determined by mechanically counting relevant factors. An appeal succeeds only where the decision was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. | The Court applied this deferential approach and found no error of principle or conclusion outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. [17][18] |
| R v Aliaj [2026] EWCA Crim 1141 | The extension of the power to suspend imprisonment introduced by the 2026 Act did not alter the approach stated in R v Price. | The Court confirmed that the statutory extension had not changed the applicable appellate approach. [19] |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The sentencing judge had been aware of the Applicant’s good character, lack of subsequent offending, domestic abuse, health conditions and other mitigation. Domestic abuse had already materially reduced her culpability and the categorisation of her offending. [20]
The Court treated the decision whether to suspend the sentence as an evaluative judgment. It found that the judge was entitled to give overriding weight to the seriousness of the offending and that his reasoning disclosed no error of principle. [18]
The judge had properly considered the applicable sentencing guideline, including the principle that imprisonment may be disproportionate where an offender is pregnant and the impact on the offender or dependants is sufficiently great. Nevertheless, he concluded that the offending required immediate custody. [21]
The Court considered the offending exceptionally serious because it involved a very young baby, occurred over an extended period, and culminated in violence that would probably have been fatal without prompt emergency treatment. The Applicant knew of the abuse and the Co-defendant’s violent attitude but had not removed the child to safety. [22]
The Court acknowledged the Applicant’s ectopic pregnancy, pain, delayed medical treatment, surgery and subsequent rehabilitation in custody. Her exemplary conduct and positive prison reports supported prospects of rehabilitation. [13][14]
However, those subsequent events did not make it arguable that the sentencing judge had erred in principle or that the sentence was manifestly excessive. [15][16]
Holding and Implications
Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The 21-month sentence of immediate imprisonment remained in force. [23]
The decision left undisturbed the sentencing judge’s assessment that only immediate custody adequately marked the seriousness of the offending. No broader implication or new precedent is identified in the opinion. [18][22][23]
Alert