R v Sheppard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 15 January 1980 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1980] EWCA Crim J0115-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 5257/B/79 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 15 January 1980 |
[1980] EWCA Crim J0115-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Widgery)
Lord Justice Bridge
and
Mr. Justice Woolf
No. 5257/B/79
No. 5258/B/79
MR. A. SMITH, Q.C. and MR. J. CARTWRIGHT appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
MR. A. PALMER, Q.C. and MR. J. REDDIHOUGH appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On the 13th November, 1979 before the crown court at Northampton these two Appellants, who are husband and wife, Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard, were convicted of cruelty to their child Martin, who was then aged about 16 months between the 1st July,1978 and the 29th January, 1979. The charge was contrary to section (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.
Consequent upon the conviction, James Sheppard was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and Jennifer (the wife) to nine months' imprisonment.
Today they appeal to this court against conviction and sentence by leave of the single judge.
This is a very trying case in many respects, as these child cruelty cases so often are. It is only fair to say at the outset that the parents, who are the Appellants today, suffered considerable practical hardships. They were certainly not well off financially. They had eventually three children, two when Martin was born, and they give the impression of having done, as the judge pointed out at one stage, their incompetent best. But, at all events, the child was very much the victim of very nasty circumstances.
The family were visited by a health visitor, a Miss Crawley, consequent upon something which the child's uncle saw in him when they were out walking one day. One of the surprising things about this case's that, although a very large number of highly qualified and no doubt dedicated experts, health visitors and the like saw the child from time to time, no-one seems to have noticed that anything was very seriously wrong with him. Yet, after his death, which occurred at the end of January, he was found to be in a very serious physical state indeed. He had had no solid food for five days. He had no milk at all for something like two days. He had no subcutaneous fat, which is suggestive of the fact that his intake of food had been insufficient at some time before his death. All these matters, as they do, came out when the child was found to be dead.
The parents, as I have said, had to fight a good many difficulties. They were also guilty of lies. One matter which the prosecution regarded as being at the centre of the case, and indeed was very important, was the failure of the parents to take the child to see a paediatrician for whom three appointments had been made by the health visitor. This of course was put forward as being a failure to supply the child with medical attention and was a very good example of such. What impact it made on the jury one does not know, but the jury were told that these three appointments were made and refused, and that the last of them was the 22nd December, just before Christmas, and very shortly before the child died.
In view of the course which this case has taken it is not necessary to deal in any great detail with the facts. I shall content myself with the brief summary which I have already made.
The argument from the point of view of the responsibilities of the parents to this treatment of the child turns on a question of construction of the statute, and it is to that I must turn at once. The statute, as I have said, is section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. So far as material, that reads as follows: "(1) If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has the custody, charge, or care of any child or young person under that age, wilfully … neglects … or causes … him to be …. neglected … in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health that person shall be guilty of an offence…."
Of all the requirements in that subsection making up the offence, most of them were not the subject of argument because most of them were clearly decided, but the case hinged on the true meaning of wilful neglect. We have had helpful argument today upon that phrase as it appears in the legislation dealing with children.
Two alternative arguments are put forward. One is that the neglect which is charged as wilful is merely neglect which is not inadvertent. It is said, on_the one side, that, if the accused were shown to have been responsible for the acts complained of, and if the acts complained of amount to the necessary neglect, then no further knowledge or mental element is required.
On the other hand, it is argued that there must be a mental element here because the word "wilful" would be wholly emasculated unless it is given some purpose. Accordingly, it is contended by the Appellants that the word "wilful" does require proof by the prosecution of knowledge by the accused that the act or omission was likely to be injurious to the child and they had an intention to go ahead nevertheless.
This matter has appeared in the legislation affecting children and young persons for a very long time, and the authority which is always cited in respect of these matters is the case of The Queen v. Senior (1899) 1 Q.B. 283. The headnote is on page 283 and reads as follows: "By the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894, "and then the section is set out. I have read it and will not read it again. The headnote continues: "The prisoner was charged with the manslaughter of his infant child, of which he had the custody. He belonged to a sect who objected on religious grounds to calling in medical aid, and to the use of medicine, and he had wilfully and deliberately abstained from providing medical aid and medicine, which were necessary for the child, though he know it to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Nursing (Ligaya)
...Children and Young Person's Act 1931. Neglect, of itself, is not enough to establish the offence. The neglect must be indeed "wilful" (see Sheppard [1981] AC 394), assessed in the context of an offence created in a statutory context in which "capacity" and "lack of capacity" are defined. 10......
-
Daniels, R v
...direction to the jury on the issue of whether the acts relied on were “wilful” as that word was explained by the House of Lords in R v Sheppard [1981] AC 394. 10 For the prosecution, Mr Janes submits that, although short, the direction was adequate in the context of this case. The issues in......
-
Cox v Director of Public Prosecutions
... ... For example, there is a clear mental element or mens rea contained in the definition of the offence. The prosecution must establish that the acts of the accused were "wilfully" done. To do something "wilfully" involves an intention or recklessness (see R v. Sheppard [1981] A.C. 394 ; Newington [1990] 91 Cr. App. R. 247 ; O'Reilly v. East Coast Cinemas [1968] 1 I.R. 56 and the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland v. Carroll [1995] 3 I.R. 145 per Murphy J. at pages 160 to 161). Certain elements of the King decision are of no relevance. There is no ... ...
- R v Sheppard