The Justice Committee, a parliamentary group set up to examine the policies, spending and administration of the Ministry of Justice and related public bodies, published a report on 3rd July, which recommends reworking the current criminal law guidelines for sentencing around child cruelty offences, including the need to obtain expert evidence on psychological harm, and developmental harm on a child.

The recommendations were made after the government floated a consultation on the topic. Respondents included judges, criminal justice organisations, local government, members of the public, lawyers and NHS bodies.

The report tells us that 623 offenders were sentenced for child cruelty crimes, in 2016, with 6 offenders sentenced for causing or allowing the death of a child, and 23 for causing or allowing serious physical harm to a child. To date, there have been no convictions under Section 3A of the FGM Act 2003.

The report also confirms that more women than men have been sentenced for these offences.

Cruelty to a Child can be broken down into four categories; assault and ill-treatment, neglect, abandonment and failure to protect.

Key proposed changes to the guidelines:

• 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 female genital mutilation (FGM);
• Setting a lower starting point for offenders who have failed to protect a child from cruelty, as opposed to inflicting it;
• Engaging expert evidence to determine psychological harm/developmental harm
• A new range of aggravating factors: for example, those in positions of power, such as a teacher or priest;
• A new range of mitigating factors, such as remorse and good character
• Looking at ways to clarify the law around failing to protect a child and committing an act against that child. The guidelines currently combine the two elements when the perpetrator of direct harm in the household is not known;
• Taking into account the complex cultural and social context which leads parents to mistakenly believe that FGM is in a girl’s best interests, during the sentencing process

The report’s findings and recommendations are likely to engage child abuse campaigners and family law reformers, who would like to see tougher sentencing for child abusers and a great deal more solid evidence in risk of future harm cases.

You can access the report here. 

Telford’s MP, Lucy Allan, has confirmed that an independent inquiry into alleged child sexual abuse in the town, will be held, after calls from Allan and other politicians to establish an investigation. The abuse, which took place during the 1980’s up to the present day, may have led to as many as 1,000 children being groomed and sexually exploited. 

The investigation is likely to be paid for by affected local authorities in the area, after the Home Office declined to fund the inquiry.

It’s not yet clear what form the inquiry will take, though it could be similar in style to Rotherham’s pioneering child abuse investigation produced by Professor Alexis Jay, the current chair of the nation’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Miss Allan is keen to use Rotherham’s model as a jumping off point for Telford’s own investigation:

“All parties are now agreed that an inquiry is necessary and this can now go ahead… While it would be expected that such an inquiry will take the form of a ‘Rotherham style’ inquiry, as this is a tried and tested model, there may well be alternative models that would work just as well… What really matters is that an independent inquiry is going to take place. This is vital for the victims, their families and our community. It will enable us to find out why this happened.”

Telford’s MP says that since the abuse hit the headlines, she has been inundated with calls from victims.  The scale of abuse in the town has led to the media calling it Britain’s worst ever child grooming scandal.

Image: ITV News

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has confirmed that it will not be reopening the investigation into toddler Poppi Worthington’s death. The decision comes after the CPS could not find enough new evidence to press charges.

Poppi suffered multiple injuries, and was sexually assaulted shortly before she died in 2012. The case hit the headlines after a serious catalogue of blunders was exposed, resulting in important evidence being lost or ignored. Justice Jackson ruled that Poppi’s father was almost certainly responsible for her fatal injuries, though he is now unlikely to ever be charged, in large part because of the serious local authority and police failings.

Poppi’s mother wanted to have the case reopened, after three separate judgments confirmed that Poppi had been sexually assaulted before she died. She has also called out the right to remain silent rule, which she says was responsible for frustrating the coroner’s inquiry into Poppi’s case. Under the right to remain silent rule, an individual has the right to not answer a question or specific questions put to them during criminal proceedings, which include coroners’ inquests. The lawyer acting for Poppi’s mother told Sky News:

“[Poppi’s mother] was… left disappointed that Poppi’s father chose to rely on his right not to answer many questions which may incriminate him at the inquest… While she understands he was entitled to do this, she considers that the coroner’s inquiry was frustrated by this.”

The case raises important questions about evidence gathering and getting the balance right between individuals’ and defendants rights as set against the rights of victims. Whilst the right to remain silent protects another concept – innocent until proven guilty – adverse inferences can be drawn if an individual chooses not to answer a question during a hearing. There are specific instances where this applies, and certain conditions need to be met before an adverse or negative inference can be drawn.

The right to remain silent becomes even more contentious within the context of cases which have to rely heavily on verbal evidence from witnesses because other forms of evidence are either severely limited or nonexistent, like Poppi’s case.

Our heart goes out to Poppi’s mother.