Guidelines published today by the Sentencing Council set down new sentencing rules for child cruelty offences, as well as failing to protect girls from the risk of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). The new protocols will come into force on 1 January, 2019.
The guidance covers three separate offences:
- cruelty to a child;
- causing or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm; and
- failing to protect a girl from the risk of FGM
The guidelines come three months after the Justice Committee released a report in which the parliamentary group made several recommendations, including the addition of two further offences: causing or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm, and failing to protect a child from the risk of FGM. The report also offered a range of aggravating and mitigating factors to be taken into account when sentencing offenders for child cruelty and FGM related crimes, which appear to be reflected in the new guidelines.
Sentencing Council member Mrs Justice Maura McGowan, gives her thoughts on the new guidelines in the Council’s press release:
“Child cruelty offences vary greatly. They can range from a one-off lapse of care which puts a child at risk of harm to a campaign of deliberate cruelty which leads to serious injury or even death. This new guideline will help ensure sentences that reflect what the offender has done and the harm to the child. It states for example that cases involving very significant force, or multiple incidents of serious cruelty should always be treated as being in the highest category of culpability. The guideline will also assist sentencers in cases where the offender has also been the victim of abuse from another.”
Researching Reform 
Pingback: New Sentencing Guidelines For Child Cruelty Offences To Come Into Force | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE : KAREN IRVING IS EL COYOTE IS SNAKE LOGAN
“failing to protect a girl from the risk of FGM”?
Drawing on the immortal words of John McEnroe, the Sentencing Council can NOT be serious.
FGM is vanishingly rare in the UK, which largely explains why not one successful prosecution has happened in the 33 years since the FGM Act. (Hint to the police / CPS: Look for perpetrators where they actually exist, the community of middle-aged to elderly black women of African descent in the UK, not men. MGM is mainly carried out by men at the behest of men. FGM is mainly carried out by women at the behest of women).
In the meantime, of course, the official position of HMG is to NOT protect male minors from the risk of MGM. Hell, the government takes incomes taxes from the butchers who continue to carry out the crimes (ABH or GBH under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
It would require a parliamentary override to make MGM illegal. That has never existed.
There are no exemptions from the law of the land for religious or cultural considerations. NONE.
It’s time for gender equality – the state should ensure the same genital autonomy to male minors, that it ensures for female minors. Hmm, why are feminists not campaigning for THAT?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
Some extracts from the report below which the rogue element of fifth column social workers who inflict to harm with impunity would do well to read:
“Where there are characteristics present which fall under different levels of culpability, the court should balance these characteristics to reach a fair assessment of the
offender’s culpability.
Culpability demonstrated by one or more of the following:
A High culpability:
• Gratuitous degradation of victim and/or sadistic behaviour
• Deliberate disregard for the welfare of the victim
• Failure to take any steps to protect the victim from offences in which the above factors are present
Harm
The court should consider the factors set out below to determine the level of harm that has been
caused or was intended to be caused to the victim.
Psychological, developmental or emotional harm
A finding that the psychological, developmental or emotional harm is serious may be based on
a clinical diagnosis but the court may make such a finding based on other evidence from or on
behalf of the victim that serious psychological, developmental or emotional harm exists. It is
important to be clear that the absence of such a finding does not imply that the psychological,
developmental or emotional harm suffered by the victim is minor or trivial.”
LikeLike
Worried they will twist these laws against innocent people, parents, which has been going on for many years. When I find corruption in the legal family court council prosecution lawyer as being a bogus person, who even has a financial interest with a large fostering adoption agency ,then where are the laws to protect the innocent in family courts, by this there is not. [Edited]
LikeLike
Hi Alan, details on the welcome page: https://researchingreform.net/a-welcome/
LikeLike