NI Crown Court: Suspended sentence for father who shook newborn

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] NICC 19
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  NI Crown Court
• Judge:
  His Honor Judge Mark Reel

Delivering judgment for the Crown Court, His Honour Judge Mark Reel opined “while I do struggle with the defendant’s attitude to the causation of the injury to the victim, taken together, in what is a very difficult sentencing exercise and by the finest of margins, it seems to me that the interests of society, and the victim are best served by suspending the sentence and that these factors taken together do amount to exceptional circumstances.”

Background

On 30 December 2017, the defendant, then 24 years of age, was looking after his daughter, JP, whilst her mother was at a hairdresser.

JP, then 22 days old, had been dropped off that morning by her mother, KP, who had fed, changed and put JP to sleep. The newborn was due another feed at 2pm.

The defendant messaged KP to tell her, inter alia, that JP was “breathing funny”. After KP had returned home, JP suffered a seizure and was transported by paramedics to the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children.

Diagnostic imaging conducted in the emergency department revealed that JP had suffered a left-sided subdural haemorrhage and right-sided subarachnoid haemorrhage. A consultant paediatrician, Dr Murray, noted a 1x1cm brown bruise on the child’s left jaw.

JP deteriorated overnight and she was admitted to ICU, where she continued to have seizures. The conclusion of the multi-disciplinary team caring for JP was that, having regard to her injuries which also included extensive bilateral retinal haemorrhage and encephalopathy, the findings were in keeping with acute traumatic head injury and were not consistent with birth-related injury.

The expert medical opinions sought as part of the criminal investigation and concurrent family proceedings also ruled out birth injury, genetic factors, and concluded that forceful shaking of JP was the likely mechanism of her cerebral palsy and other injuries.

Throughout his interviews with police, the defendant denied having shaken JP and denied that he had been annoyed or frustrated with her. The defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on 27 August 2024.

On 11 February 2026, after all medical evidence had been received, the defendant was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm contrary to s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

At the sentencing stage, the defendant contended that he should be given significant credit for his plea.  

The Crown Court

Judge Reel considered article 33(1) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and AG Ref (No.1 of 2006) [2006] NICA 4, in which the Court of Appeal stated that to avail of maximum reduction in a sentence for a guilty plea, the defendant must have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

Turning to the defendant’s position, the judge explained that while the approach of waiting until all defence reports had been gathered prior to reconsidering one’s plea has advantages, “Such an approach will ordinarily result in the diminution of credit for the defendant’s plea, should such a plea eventually be forthcoming.”

The court observed that the defendant had neither admitted to inflicting force on JP at interview, nor in his defence statement, and that he maintained that stance in his pre-sentence report, failing to accept that any act or omission on his part contributed to JP’s injuries and offering no explanation as to how any harm could have befallen her.

Judge Reel remarked that the issue of remorse was a nuanced one where the defendant now accepted that JP had been in his sole care when she was injured and where he accepted that his actions must have caused her injuries, though he claimed that he could not recall and was not aware of having done anything to cause them.

The court opined, “I have no doubt that he keenly feels that regret every day of his life and is confronted by the consequences of his actions every time he sees or thinks about his daughter…However, the essence of remorse in the context of its forming part of the consideration of the circumstances of the defendant’s plea, involves an acceptance of a connection between those two things, between the victim’s injuries and the defendant’s actions and that element is extant here in an equivocal form.”

In circumstances where the trial would have required the multiple expert witnesses, time and expense which were rendered unnecessary by the defendant’s late plea, the judge ruled that the defendant was entitled to a 20 per cent reduction in his sentence.

Moving to the defendants’ personal circumstances, the court outlined that the defendant was now 33 years of age, was married and had a three year-old child with his wife. They were living with their parents in order to save for a house.

The defendant had been in a relationship with KP from his teens and had fathered a child with KP at the age of 17. That child was now 14 years of age and JP was their second child together. The relationship broke down after the offence the subject of the proceedings.

The defendant as assessed as being at a low risk of reoffending with strong protective factors including family support, full-time employment, no recent offending and no drug use.

As to the victim impact statements, JP’s social worker set out that as of 2023, JP had diagnoses of progressive cerebral palsy, epilepsy, brain injury and autism, conditions which would be life long and progressive.

KP set out that JP continued to suffer with seizures and at almost nine years of age, had the mental age of a two year-old. KP further described having to leave work to care for JP full-time, explaining that she was becoming difficult to manage and remained non-verbal and incontinent.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered R v Orr [1990] NI 287, R v Mitchell [2005] NICA 30, R v Anderson [2011] NICC 28 and R v LG [2023] NICC 13, sentencing on the basis that there was “no prolonged shaking of JP but that it was enough to be obviously vigorous to a bystander, it was in all likelihood a momentary lapse, when one sets it against what the court knows about the defendant’s character. Culpability is moderate. This is an offence of high harm, the child received life changing injuries.”

Noting inter alia the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, Judge Reel stated that the only appropriate starting point was one of custody as the defendant had robbed JP “of any chance of a normal life.”

Taking into account the defendant’s previous and subsequent good record, the impact that imprisonment would have on his wife, the delay on part of the prosecution which amounted to a breach of the defendant’s rights, the maintenance which would be lost to KP by the imprisonment of the defendant, and the effect of the imprisonment on the defendant’s children, Judge Reel determined that a sentence of 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment was appropriate.

As to whether the sentence should be suspended, the court opined “while I do struggle with the defendant’s attitude to the causation of the injury to the victim, taken together, in what is a very difficult sentencing exercise and by the finest of margins, it seems to me that the interests of society, and the victim are best served by suspending the sentence and that these factors taken together do amount to exceptional circumstances.”

Conclusion

In those circumstances, the Crown Court sentenced the defendant to 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment suspended for 4 years.

The King v GN [2026] NICC 19