England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		9 October 2009

1. JUDGE ROGERS: On 5th March 2009 at the Crown Court at Coventry, before His Honour Judge Ross, this applicant was convicted of two offences and was sentenced as follows. Count 1, causing or allowing the death of a child, a sentence of six years' imprisonment; count 2, perverting the course of justice, 18 months' imprisonment consecutive. Thus a total sentence of seven-and-a-half years' imprisonment. She now renews her application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge.
2. The relevant facts can be shortly summarised. At about 8.30 on the morning of 15th July 2008 the applicant left her terraced house, leaving her 22 month old daughter (Jodie) there alone. That morning there was a fire in the rear bedroom where Jodie was. The fire appeared to have originated from an electrical fault in a television in that room and the child died as a result of the inhalation of products of combustion.
3. The applicant returned to the house at about 1 o'clock. She found the child, who was probably dead by this time. She left the house with her daughter and went to a hairdressers for assistance. People within that shop tried to revive the child. The emergency services were called. Whilst they were being contacted the applicant left the shop and was seen talking on the telephone. The emergency services when they arrived tried to resuscitate the child but she was subsequently pronounced dead. Paramedics then enquired as to the applicant's whereabouts and were told that she was somewhere in the street. As the child was about to be taken to hospital the applicant appeared. She told the paramedics she had left the child with a friend. Upon arrival at hospital the applicant told the paediatrician that she left the child with a friend while she went to court for proceedings concerning her eight-year-old son who was in care. The police were able to trace the person named, Ms Brown. She said that the last time she had seen this little girl was on 13th July and that she had not been responsible for caring for her at the time when the fire occurred.
4. The applicant was subsequently arrested. She denied the offences in interview.
5. She is a woman of 37 years of age and of good character. In his sentencing remarks the judge said the fact that the applicant's son was in care was important because as a result she had abandoned this little girl. It was an extraordinary feature of the case that a mother was prepared to do such a thing. She had put her own interests ahead of the child's interests and this was not the first time that the child and her sisters had been left alone. The applicant had chosen a rear bedroom as it was designed with a heavy door so that the child could not open the door and could not be heard or seen through it. This, the judge concluded, was a premeditated and quite deliberate act so that nobody would appreciate that the child was alone. The aggravating features were the length of time the child was left alone, the circumstances in which she was left and the fact that this was not the first time that the children had been left alone.
6. The grounds of appeal were in effect that the sentence was manifestly excessive, insufficient account was taken of the principle of totality and the applicant's previous good character.
7. The single judge observed:

"I do not consider that the total sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. In the advice on appeal it is rightly recognised that the individual sentences of six years for causing or allowing the death of a child and 18 months for perverting the course of justice are not excessive. However, it is submitted that the total sentence of 7 years and 6 months is excessive for this offending. I do not agree. It is usual for a sentence for perverting the course of justice to be consecutive and the 'elaborate course of lying' and the suborning of the 'responsible and caring' Christine Brown which the applicant embarked upon in an attempt to avoid culpability for what had happened made it a serious example of such a case... The judge correctly regarded the causing of the death of the child as falling within the middle of the sentencing range... The judge also had well in mind the relevant mitigating factors, including in particular the punishment involved in the applicant losing her child. In summary, I do not consider that the judge's sentence or clear and cogent sentencing remarks can be seriously criticised. The total sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive."

We agree with and cannot improve upon the observations of the single judge. This application is without merit and is refused.