Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - child neglect - exposing a child to the risk of harm.

[2015]JRC175

Royal Court

(Samedi)

24 August 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

K

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  31.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Monday, 8^th December, 2014, K was in her flat with her 18 month old son.  She was in the company of a male friend.  The smoke alarm went off.  K's neighbour heard the alarm.  She went to the front door of K's flat, knocked on the door several times and when she received no response looked through the letter box and saw smoke.  She immediately went upstairs to call the fire brigade.  Another neighbour also heard the alarm and went to K's flat, opened the front door and shouted from the threshold to alert the occupants.  No one responded.  The fire brigade arrived approximately 30 minutes after the alarm had gone off.  The fire officers entered the premises to find that a pan had been left on the stove which contained meat and eggs, still in their shells.  It was not on fire, but was the source of the smoke.  K and her male friend were found slumped on the sofa; they did not rouse when shouted at.  K eventually woke up when she was shaken.  Her child was located and removed from the premises.  The child was wearing dirty clothes and his nappy had not been changed.  K showed little or no concern for her child's welfare.  Police officers in attendance noted that K was under the influence of intoxicants.  Her speech was slurred and she appeared confused stating it was Friday when it was Sunday.  She was arrested and interviewed.  She stated that she had been decorating that was why the flat was messy.  She had forgotten about the food she had been cooking.  She had taken a mixture of several drugs that had been prescribed to her in the past.  She was not currently prescribed them.  She had taken in excess of the recommended dosage.  She knew these drugs made her drowsy.  She also had taken half a diazepam tablet. 

But for the intervention of a third party the consequences for the child could have been grave.  Fortunately the child was unharmed.  It was accepted that K did not intend to expose her child to the risk of harm.  Previous similar conduct towards her two older children was an aggravating factor. 

Details of Mitigation:

Pleaded guilty but not co-operative with the police.  Contents of the reports taken into account. 

Previous Convictions:

8 previous convictions - 4 of those convictions were for child neglect (on two separate occasions on her two other children). 

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court accepted not the defendant was not deliberately exposing the child to harm but it took the actions of a third party to avoid harm to child.  This was fifth conviction.  Given benefit for guilty plea but not of good character. 

Conclusions granted. 

Ms S. J. O'Donnell, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        We remind the media that they are not allowed to report this matter in such a way as may be likely to identify the child in his case.  

2.        K you are to be sentenced in respect of one count of recklessly exposing a child to harm. 

3.        Although, mercifully, your son was not in fact harmed, the consequences of your actions could have been catastrophic.  By taking a mixture of drugs you rendered yourself incapable of looking after him and keeping him safe.  When the smoke alarm in your home was set off because food had been left on the stove cooking, it did not rouse you and you could not initially be roused by firemen who attended at the scene.  We accept, of course, that this was recklessness on your part and you did not deliberately expose your child to harm, however it took the actions of third parties to avoid that harm, and to protect your child.  It was no thanks to you. 

4.        This is your fifth conviction for child neglect and so whilst you do have the benefit of a guilty plea, you are not of good character in this respect.  We have, however, considered the mitigation very carefully indeed, including all of the various reports we have received.  We understand and appreciate the difficulties that you face.  We have read carefully the letter that you have provided to the Court and we accept that your remorse is genuine. 

5.        We have decided to adopt the conclusions of the Crown.  It seems to us that a suspended sentence of 9 months marks the seriousness of the neglect but the suspension offers you the chance to show that you can take the help that is offered to you, and to turn your life around and we very much hope that you will do so. 

6.        Accordingly, the decision of the Court is to impose a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years.  That means that within the 2 year period of suspension, if you commit another offence and come back before the Court in circumstances where you might face a sentence of imprisonment, then the Court can also require the sentence to be served.  If you do not, however, then at the end of the 2 year period you no longer need to be concerned about imprisonment for this matter.  If you have not understood what I have just said, your advocate will explain it to you again once the Court has risen. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Criminal Justice (Suspension of Prison Sentences)(Jersey) Law 2003.

AG-v-J and Le Geyt [2011] JRC 203.