![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Brown, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 2133 (09 October 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2133.html Cite as: [2009] EWCA Crim 2133 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE BLAIR
HIS HONOUR JUDGE ROGERS QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
v | ||
MICHELLE BROWN |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"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.