5 July 2024
The decision in R v B to reduce the sentence of a mother by 12 months to avoid the risk of further separation from her baby, handed down by the Court of Appeal on 4 July 2024, coincided with headlines warning of a “one in one out” policy due to severe overcrowding.
The case adds to what is now becoming a long line of cases where the Court of Appeal has stepped in to adjust prison sentences for imposed on pregnant women or mothers with babies.
In this case, the Court accepted fresh evidence of the constellation of mental health difficulties faced by the Appellant that was not available at the time of sentence. The report highlighted that impact of the sentence on her and her child.
The court found that the risk of mother and baby being separated after the child’s second birthday, after which he would no longer be able to remain with her in prison. In line with authority, including the cases of Petherick, Cheesman, Roscorl, McGrory, Estabrook and Nelson, the Court made a significant downward adjustment of 12 months in the overall sentence so as to prevent that risk.
The case emphasises that the welfare of the child should be at the forefront of judicial thinking when it comes to sentencing pregnant women and mothers. One of the real concerns in this case was that at the point of sentencing, there was no clear plan in the reports before the judge as to what the plan was for the baby.
The case serves as an important reminder for all those involved in criminal proceedings that, where a mother is at risk of custody, inquiries need to be made and clear plans need to be before the court before custodial sentence should be imposed
It is especially helpful in instances where circumstances transpire to be more difficult that was foreseen or realised at the time of sentencing. The Court in this was took the view that it mattered not whether there was or was not criticism to be made of the original sentencing exercise, in light of the circumstances that subsequently transpired the welfare of the child must “trump” the original term imposed in order to ensure further separation was avoided at all costs. As such – those acting on appeal should not feel constrained simply by reference to identifying errors in the original sentence if fresh evidence demonstrates that the welfare of a child is being undermined thereafter. Representatives on appeal will, of course, always need to make sure that there is a suitable plan in place for mother and child before the appeal hearing in the event of a positive outcome.
Representation – Laura Janes, consultant solicitor GT Stewart Solicitors and Pippa Woodrow, Doughty Street Chambers