Batchelor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This was an appeal against sentence following permission granted by a single judge. The Appellant had pleaded guilty to cruelty to a person under 16 and obstructing or resisting a constable. The relevant offence resulted in a sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment. [1][2]

The victim was approximately 18 months old. Video recordings showed repeated cruel treatment, including slapping, binding, blindfolding, pouring water over the child’s face, applying substances to the child, and other acts causing visible distress. The conduct occurred over approximately four months and was recorded by the Appellant and the Co-accused. [3][4][5][6][7][8]

The sentencing judge treated the offending as culpability category B and harm category 2, giving a five-year sentence after trial, reduced to three years and four months for the Appellant’s guilty plea. [9][10][11][12]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the offending should have been categorised as harm category 3B rather than category 2B. [13]
2. Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, including whether a sentence capable of suspension should have been imposed. [13][14]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

• The Appellant accepted that the videos showed extremely distressing behaviour, gratuitous degradation, and higher culpability. [15][16]
• It was argued that the harm should be classified as category 3 rather than category 2 because the evidence indicated no continuing disturbed behaviour and no long-term effects. [15][16]
• The Appellant accepted that some psychological harm had been caused, but submitted that it was low psychological harm and that there was no evidence of physical harm. [16]
• On the proposed category 3B classification, the sentence should have been reduced to a level at or below 24 months, making suspension available. [13][16]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that direct evidence of cruelty to a very young child is unusual because a child of that age cannot explain what occurred. Here, however, the Court had viewed the video recordings themselves. [17][18]

The recordings demonstrated cruel treatment over four months, with the child experiencing confusion, pain, and distress. The fact that the Appellant and the Co-accused appeared to derive enjoyment from the conduct, and deliberately recorded it, increased its seriousness. [18]

The Court accepted that culpability was properly assessed at level B. It explained that harm category 2 includes cases falling between categories 1 and 3 and cases involving a high likelihood of category 1 harm. Category 1 harm includes serious psychological, developmental, emotional, or physical harm. [19]

The Court concluded that the treatment of a child of this age—including sellotaping, blindfolding, tying the child to a cot, repeatedly pouring water over the child’s face, and exposing the child to substances in the eyes—created a high likelihood of serious psychological, developmental, or emotional harm. The offending was therefore correctly classified as category 2. [19][20]

The Court further held that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant factors, including the prolonged nature of the offending, the child’s extreme youth, the recordings, the Appellant’s good character, and the guilty plea. The sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. [11][12][21]

Holding and Implications

Appeal dismissed. The sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment was upheld. Because the sentence exceeded 24 months, the issue of suspension did not arise. [22][14]

The direct effect was that the Appellant’s custodial sentence remained in force. The opinion did not establish a new precedent.