Attorney general rejects Baby P appeal

The three people convicted of offences in the Baby P case will not have their sentences referred to the court of appeal, the attorney general announced today.

Baroness Scotland said last month that she would consider referring the cases after the sentences provoked outrage in some quarters about their perceived leniency.

The three, including the mother of Baby P, whose name was Peter, were all convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child; the boyfriend of Peter’s mother was also convicted of raping a two-year-old girl.

However, speaking today, Scotland said she had decided against a referral. “The sentences fall within the range that it was reasonable for the judge to have imposed,” she said.

“In reaching my decision I reviewed the case papers, the law and the relevant sentencing guidelines. It was clear to me that the judge, who had heard all of the evidence, fully appreciated the gravity of these terrible offences and took into account all of the relevant factors.”

Two of the three convicted – Peter’s mother and her lodger Jason Owen – received indeterminate sentences, which lawyers say makes it difficult for prisoners to be released despite in some cases relatively short minimum tariffs.

Peter’s mother was given an indeterminate sentence of “imprisonment for public protection” with a minimum term, or tariff, of five years to be served before she can be considered for release. She will be able to apply for parole in just over three years because she had already spent 644 days on remand awaiting trial.

Fewer than 50 prisoners have been released at their minimum tariff date.

Owen was also given an indeterminate sentence for public protection with a minimum tariff of at least three years. He had already spent 289 days in custody when the sentences were handed down by the Old Bailey judge last Friday and so could, in theory, be out in just over two years.

The mother’s boyfriend was given 12 years for his involvement in Peter’s death and a life sentence for the rape of a two-year-old girl, with a minimum of 10 years.

IPP sentences (indeterminate sentences for public protection) have caused controversy since they were introduced in 2005 because they stipulate a minimum term but do not allow offenders to be released from prison until they are assessed as no longer a risk to the public. “These offenders will only be released from prison if and when the parole board are satisfied that they no longer present a risk to the public, and in particular to children,” Scotland said.

“Whether that day ever comes will depend on a careful assessment of risk, and the victims’ relatives will be able to make representations about that calculation of risk to the parole board before they conclude their assessment”.

Children’s groups including the NSPCC condemned the sentences when they were handed down last month, saying they were “disappointed” with the minimum tariff. “It raises the question of how bad the abuse has to be before offenders get a longer minimum time in prison,” the NSPCC’s chief executive, Andrew Flanagan, said.

But the attorney general, who has referred around a third of the sentences she has considered as being unduly lenient to the court of appeal, insisted today that the sentences were reasonable. “There is no realistic prospect that the court of appeal would increase the sentences if I referred them,” she said.