Forums Forums National News Three jailed over Baby P's death

Three jailed over Baby P's death




Baby Peter's mother, her boyfriend and their lodger have been jailed for causing or allowing the boy's death.

The toddler died after enduring months of abuse in Haringey, north London.

Peter's mother and lodger Jason Owens were given indefinite sentences. She must serve at least five years and Owens at least three years.

The boyfriend was given 12 years over Peter's death and life for raping a two-year-old girl. He must serve a minimum of 10 years.

Old Bailey Judge Stephen Kramer said both Baby Peter's mother and Owens would be jailed indefinitely until "deemed no longer to be a risk to the public and in particular to small children".

He described the mother as a "manipulative" and "self-centred" person with "a calculating side as well as a temper".

The judge said she neglected Baby Peter, who was 17 months old at the time of his death, for the sake of her relationship with her boyfriend.

The atmosphere in their home allowed "a complete lack of care", with "a sickening and descending loss of personal responsibility", he said.

'Deceived the authorities'

"I reject the suggestion that you were blind to what was happening in that house or that you were naive," he told Baby Peter's mother.

"Your conduct over the months prevented Peter from being seen by social services. You actively deceived the authorities."

Judge Kramer said the mother's boyfriend played "a major role" in Peter's death.

He said the boyfriend's rape of a two-year-old girl was a "massive breach of trust".

"The seriousness and extraordinary and abhorrent features of this offence call for a sentence outside the normal guidelines," the judge said.

The boyfriend must serve a minimum of 10 years for rape before he can be considered for parole.

The judge told Owens: "You ignored Peter's needs - the needs of a child obviously at risk - preferring instead to shield yourself from discovery."

Baby Peter suffered more than 50 injuries including broken ribs and a broken back.

'Sense of shock'

They occurred despite the fact that Baby Peter was on the at-risk register and receiving 60 visits from social workers, doctors and police over eight months.

The judge said: "Any decent person who heard the catalogue of medical conditions and non-accidental injuries suffered by Peter cannot fail to have been appalled."

Baby Peter's mother will be eligible for parole in August 2012. Owens will be eligible for parole in August 2011.

The BBC's Angus Crawford, who was in the court, said there was shouting from the public gallery as Peter's mother was led from the dock.

"She was sworn at and called a tramp. Outside the Old Bailey, a group of women wearing T-shirts with a picture of Baby Peter's face on, complained that the sentences were too lenient.

"They shouted, 'The system must be changed'," he said.

Earlier on Friday a serious case review said Baby Peter's death "could and should have been prevented".

Lord Laming, who carried out a wide-ranging review of child protection services after Baby P's death, said the tragedy reinforced his belief that reforms had to be implemented nationwide.

He said: "These are tragic cases, and I share the sense of shock and concern felt by everyone, not least because of the failure of each of the key public services to intervene and protect these young children already identified to be seriously at risk."

Five employees of Haringey Council in north London, including children's services director Sharon Shoesmith, were sacked after Baby Peter's death.

The General Medical Council has suspended two doctors involved in the case.



THE BBC

Eventually a verdict. Way too lenient for the appauling injuries the baby suffered. The law does need to be changed: manslaughter is 8 years! The employees also contributed to this - being sacked/suspended is also too lenient, they should be prosecuted - aiding and abbetting? What message does this give out - a child's life is only worth a couple of years inside prison. Shame on the judge, the judicial system. Someone should call for a re-trial for a more befitting sentence. But, unfortunately, you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. What an appauling conclusion to a baby's murder.

I agree with you Gloria - every day of the sentence meted out should be served, not a minute less. Unfortunately, it's the Government that set the sentencing guidelines and the Judges are bound by that. They are also bound by the Government telling them that the jails are overcrowded - hence a lot of people who WOULD be put behind bars are given a non custodial sentence.

I know a lot in the Legal Profession are unhappy with the way it is, but short of ousting the Government and setting new standards for sentencing, there's not much can be done unfortunately

There's talk of building more prisons, but there are issues there too - nobody wants one in their area (NIMBY's), what do we do when they too are full, where will the money come from and who will staff it?

Personally, I think they should have the same done to them as they did to that poor little boy, but then I have no say

Just as a post script, the "double jeopardy" rule was scrapped in 2005 so now defendants who were cleared by a jury can be retried. Acquitted suspects can face a retrial if "new and compelling" evidence can be produced. Prosecutors can now also offer negative character evidence, such as previous convictions, to support their case.

The first landmark case came to an end this week.

Legal Precedent here