R v Louise Lennon
[2024] EWCA Crim 319
R v Krunal Prajapati
19 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 464
Court of Appeal
A father shook his baby so hard she died. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison for manslaughter. The government tried to get a longer sentence, but the court said the judge already considered everything and the sentence, while maybe a bit light, wasn't unfairly short.
Key Facts
- •Krunal Prajapati was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter for the death of his 11-week-old daughter, Hazel.
- •Hazel sustained severe injuries, including skull fractures, rib fractures, and brain damage, consistent with violent shaking and blunt force trauma.
- •Prajapati initially lied to police but later admitted dropping Hazel, though denied intentionally harming her.
- •The judge sentenced Prajapati to 10 years' imprisonment, classifying the culpability as category B of the sentencing guidelines for unlawful act manslaughter.
- •The Solicitor General referred the sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Legal Principles
Test for unduly lenient sentence: A sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range a judge could reasonably consider appropriate. Leave to refer is granted only in exceptional circumstances, not borderline cases. Section 36 addresses 'gross error'.
Attorney General's Reference (R v Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846
Sentencing guidelines for unlawful act manslaughter (culpability categories A-D), considering subjective intent and objective risk.
Sentencing Council guidelines (effective from 1 November 2018)
Law officers are not bound by prosecution counsel's submissions.
R v Stewart [2016] EWCA Crim 2238
The sentencing court should avoid an overly mechanistic application of sentencing guidelines.
Attorney General's Reference (R v Parry) [2023] EWCA Crim 421 and this case's judgment
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused the Solicitor General's application.
The court found that while the sentence was merciful, it was not unduly lenient. The judge appropriately considered all factors, avoiding an overly mechanistic application of the guidelines. The facts of this case were distinguished from Attorney General's Reference (R v Parry), which involved vastly different circumstances.