CHILD NE­GLECT SHAME

Sunday Sun - - News -

Her lawyers ar­gued at the Crim­i­nal Ap­peal Court, in Lon­don, that she had “spi­ralled into de­pres­sion” and had been un­able to cope with work­ing as well as look­ing af­ter chil­dren and the­house.

But re­ject­ing the pleas for mercy and throw­ing out her ap­peal, the judges said the house had been a “pig sty” and there had been “pro­tracted ne­glect”.

Dur­ing the orig­i­nal sen­tenc­ing hear­ing in July, Judge Stephen Earl told the pair: “Frankly, how they man­aged to sur­vive in your care is some­what in ques­tion.

“It is ap­palling that you lived in this sit­u­a­tion, never mind brought up chil­dren in it.

“This is pro­tracted ne­glect over a lengthy pe­riod of time.”

De­fence bar­ris­ters told the court the par­ents had been strug­gling with their own is­sues at the time and their sit­u­a­tion got out of hand and urged the judge to sus­pend the prison sen­tences.

But he re­fused, say­ing: “Such that the mes­sage is sent ap­pro­pri­ately that chil­dren are prob­a­bly one of the great­est as­sets that a so­ci­ety has.

“The way in which these chil­dren were ill-treated and ne­glected de­serves an im­me­di­ate cus­to­dial sen­tence.”

Judge Earl ques­tioned how those who saw the chil­dren every day out­side of their home did not raise any con­cerns.

He said: “Didn’t school no­tice that these chil­dren were in an ap­palling state?

“It is re­ported that these chil­dren had had lice, se­ri­ous head lice for two years or more.”

The judge said it “beg­gars be­lief” that their plight was not brought to the at­ten­tion of the au­thor­i­ties ear­lier.

He added: “I have se­ri­ous con­cerns about how we al­lowed this

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.