The Court of Appeal has suspended a custodial sentence imposed upon a young mother of children with significant neurodiverse conditions and disabilities, following a successful appeal against sentence by Lucy Taylor.
On 29 May 2026, SC was sentenced to 45 months imprisonment for an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, which was committed on 6 April 2024. During the incident SC bit the eyelid of the complainant, causing a 2cm wound that required stitches and left a permanent scar.
At sentencing, the Judge placed the offence within Category 2B of the relevant Sentencing Guideline, despite Lucy’s argument that it should be categorised as a 3B. The defence submission was that scarring will be an inevitable consequence of many section 18 offences and there was no medical evidence commenting upon whether any visual disturbance was permanent. The Judge therefore adopted a starting point of five years’ imprisonment, increased it by one year to reflect aggravating features, and then reduced it back to five years to account for mitigation, before applying a 25% reduction for guilty plea.
SC is the mother of two young children with significant neurodiverse conditions, disabilities and complex needs. Evidence was provided at sentencing to show the extent of the children’s needs. Both parents were full-time carers for the children. Any immediate custodial sentence made it unlikely that SC would be able to have contact with her children during the custodial term.
The sentencing Judge concluded that (1) the minimum appropriate sentence was 45 months; and (2) even if the sentence could have been reduced to three years’ imprisonment, it could not properly be suspended by application of the Imposition Guideline.
The appeal against sentence was heard on 13 August 2026. Two grounds of appeal were advanced. First, it was argued that the level of harm had been incorrectly categorised. Secondly, it was submitted that, had the correct categorisation been adopted, the sentence could have been reduced to a level at which suspension was a realistic option. In concluding that he would not have suspended in any event, the sentencing Judge had failed properly to balance the factors in the Imposition Guideline, particularly those relevant to sentencing women with dependent children.
Lucy successfully argued both grounds.
The Court of Appeal held that the correct categorisation was Category 3B, carrying a starting point of four years’ imprisonment. That sentence was increased to five years to reflect aggravating features, but reduced by 18 months for mitigation, rather than 12 months, before 25% credit was then applied. The net result was a sentence capable of suspension and for the reasons advanced by Lucy throughout the process, the Court agreed to suspend it.
The correct sentence was 30 months’ custody suspended for 18 months.
In allowing the appeal, the court placed significant weight on SC’s role as the mother and primary carer of two young children with disabilities and neurodevelopmental conditions. The court accepted that any further period of separation could have a lasting adverse effect on the children and concluded that the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence would be disproportionate.
