R v Michael Ives & Anor [2026] EWCA Crim 417

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

[2026] EWCA Crim 417

Venue Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Date Thursday 12 March 2026

Before

LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELL

MR JUSTICE SWEETING

HER HONOUR JUDGE MORELAND

Reference by the Attorney General under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

REX

MICHAEL IVES

KERRY IVES

AND:

Between

REXCrown

Between

SHANNON KAYLEIGH IVES

__________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

_________

MR WILLIAM EMLYN JONES KC appeared for Solicitor General

MR DAVID ELIAS KC appeared for Respondent Michael Ives

MR QUENTIN EDWARDS appeared for Respondent Kerry Ives

MR GORDON COLE KC appeared for Applicant Shannon Ives

_________

JUDGMENT

[1]Ethan Ives-Griffiths was a 2-year-old with an independent spirit. His mother, Shannon Ives, then aged 24, and maternal grandparents, Michael and Kerry Ives, then aged 43 and 42, hit him. He was a brave and resilient boy with a strong character. Michael, Kerry and Shannon did not like him standing up for himself and decided to break him. After a horrifying escalation of cruelty and violence he was murdered.

[2]Following a trial in the Crown Court at Mold before Mr Justice Griffiths and a jury, Michael and Kerry Ives were convicted on Count 1 of murder; and on Count 3 of cruelty to a child contrary to s.1 (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Shannon was convicted on Count 2 of causing or allowing the death of a child contrary to s.5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and on Count 3 of cruelty to a child. They were sentenced by the trial Judge as follows: Michael Ives: Count 1 — Murder: life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years and 152 days. The minimum term was calculated as one of 23 years less 578 days spent on remand. Count 3 — cruelty to a child: 9 years’ imprisonment to run concurrently. Kerry Ives: Count 1 — Murder: life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years and 152 days. That minimum term was calculated as one of 17 years less 578 days spent on remand. Count 3 — cruelty to a child: 6 years’ imprisonment to run concurrently. Shannon Ives Count 2 — causing or allowing the death of a child: 12 years’ imprisonment, Count 3 — cruelty to a child: 5 years’ imprisonment to run concurrently.

[3]His Majesty's Solicitor General applies for leave to refer the sentences passed on Michael and Kerry (but not Shannon) as unduly lenient. We grant leave. Shannon seeks leave to appeal against sentence and applies for a short extension of time in which to do so. Her applications have been referred to the full court by the Registrar. We grant the short extension of time and grant leave.

The facts

[4]For convenience we will refer to the offenders and the applicant by their first names. The facts are distressing, but it is necessary to set them out in a little detail.

[5]Michael and Kerry, a married couple, had nine children, aged, at the relevant time, between 24 and 9 years old. Shannon was their eldest daughter and at the age of 24 had four children of her own; the eldest was aged 5 and the youngest a baby. Ethan was the third of her four children. He was 2 years and 3 months old when he was murdered by his grandparents in August 2021.

[6]Shannon knew that her parents were capable of physically abusing children because that had been her experience of them when she was growing up. She also knew from years of experience as a teenager and young adult that social services were on hand to support her when she could not cope and when she was the victim of domestic violence; she knew that they could get safe housing for her and her children when they needed it.

[7]On 7 June 2021, a little over two months before he was killed, Ethan had a developmental review from a health visitor. He was found to be fit and well; he had reached all his developmental milestones. His progress, physically, verbally and behaviourally, was age appropriate. He was a good weight and indeed had been described as having been "chubby". Shannon would later refer to him in the condition he was in at this time as "easy going".

[8]Shannon's partner was arrested for aggressive behaviour on 9 June 2021 and banned from the house as a condition of bail. Shannon took her three youngest children including Ethan to stay with her sister, and then two days later moved them to stay with another sister. Shannon was harsh with the children. She did not let them play with toys or watch television. She made them stand against the wall with their hands on their head by way of punishment. She hit them. She did not feed them properly.

[9]On 24 June, Ethan was taken into Michael and Kerry's house for them to look after him in order to make life easier for Shannon and her sister. Shannon at that stage knew that Ethan was not safe with her parents. At trial she gave evidence that she had seen both of them hit Ethan. She did not tell social services about this; instead she covered up what was being done to Ethan.

[10]On 6 July, Ethan and his siblings were put on the Child Protection Register. Unsuccessful attempts were made to visit and inspect them at least every 10 days. Shortly before 8 July, Kerry told Shannon's adult sister that Ethan would have to go back to Shannon "as it's been three weeks and he's still the same". It is apparent that during those three weeks Michael and Kerry had embarked upon a campaign of physical violence and cruelty designed to break his spirit; as Michael and Kerry saw it, it was not working. On 8 July, Michael texted to say that Ethan "needs to learn the hard way".

[11]By 17 and 18 July, Ethan had injuries to his lip, which Kerry demonstrated to Shannon by sending her photographs. Kerry and Shannon agreed in an exchange of text messages that Ethan was "naughty".

[12]A day or two later, Shannon herself moved with her other children into her parents' house where Ethan was. She was happy to let the abuse of Ethan continue. Indeed, she covered up what was happening, just as Michael and Kerry did. Shannon spent as much time as she could on her mobile phone, more interested in finding new relationships with new men than in alerting social services, or doing anything else to protect Ethan, or to get him to a place of safety. Ethan was being beaten. He was being starved and deprived of fluids. When he was fed, if he ate too quickly Michael would physically take the food out of his mouth. This mistreatment was supported by Kerry and Shannon. They, like Michael, wanted Ethan to learn "the hard way", although it was Michael who took the lead.

[13]On 22 July 2021, a social worker made what would prove to be the last visit at which Ethan was seen by a social or health worker. When the social worker arrived, he saw Ethan in the back garden and could see that he was no longer the confident child he had previously been. He seemed quite shy and dropped his head and took a little step back when cowed by the voice of his grandfather. The social worker offered Shannon help, including help with housing, and he emphasised the need for Ethan and the other children to be seen every 10 days.

[14]On 28 July, a health visitor tried to arrange another visit, but Shannon persistently ignored her texts and calls. On 30 July, Shannon texted the health worker to say that she was planning to go back to her own house in a few days, which was not true. Eventually, the health visitor made an unannounced visit to Shannon and her children at the house on 12 August. No-one answered the door to let her in. With persistent effort, a visit was set up for the following day.

[15]By 12 August, Ethan's health and physical condition had deteriorated dramatically. His body was covered with bruises. His starvation had brought it to a state of emaciation so extreme that seasoned nurses from Alder Hey Hospital who saw him as he was dying in hospital that weekend said that they had never seen anything like it. Ethan's dehydration had reached such a point that he was almost dead from that alone. Most of the violence he had suffered had been inflicted behind the closed doors of the home; most of it, and the worst of it, by Michael, but Kerry was also seen hitting Ethan by Shannon; and Shannon, who had been seen hitting Ethan before they moved in with her parents, did not stop hitting him indoors from time to time after the move.

[16]Some of Ethan's injuries, and some of their effects, were caught on CCTV outside the house. On 4 August, Ethan was in the back garden, walking with a peculiar wide stance and an uncertain gait, which was attributable, the experts said, to the early effects of brain injuries caused by previous blows to his head. The footage shows him being put on a trampoline, but he could not keep his balance, let alone jump properly. He had lost weight, and his trousers fell down. Ethan's brother and Shannon jumped on the trampoline, so that Ethan flailed helplessly. Then one of the other children of Michael and Kerry got on to the trampoline and made it worse. After about three quarters of an hour, Michael dragged Ethan off by one arm, treating him like a ragdoll. Shannon and Kerry could be seen looking on without any concern. A few minutes later, Ethan was sent back to the trampoline with his hands on his head, a position which both his mother and Michael had required him to adopt as a gesture of humiliation and punishment. This time, Michael turned the garden hose on him, and, after that, Michael successfully persuaded Ethan's 3-year-old brother to punch Ethan to the head as he was sitting submissively on the trampoline with his hands on his head. It is fair to say that the older brother seemed reluctant and did not apply much force. After that, Michael again roughly took hold of Ethan and moved him away. After that day, Ethan was kept inside the house for over a week.

[17]On the following day, 5 August, the social worker had tried to make another child protection visit. Both Kerry and Shannon prevented him from going inside the house or seeing Ethan, telling him that Ethan was having a nap. That was a lie. They kept the social worker outside the house for a total of three quarters of an hour, until he finally left. They were determined that social services should not see Ethan and take him away to safety, and were happy to support Michael's violence, neglect and degradation of the little boy they thought of as "naughty". They were also complicit in his starvation and dehydration.

[18]The social worker tried to arrange a proper visit, but Shannon put him off or ignored him. On 9 August, Shannon lied about being ill (when she was in fact perfectly fit and well) in order to excuse herself from a social services core group meeting about her children. By text, she told one of the health visitors the children were "fine", which was plainly untrue so far as Ethan was concerned.

[19]Ethan was not allowed out of the house until the afternoon of 12 August. By this time he was in a dreadful condition; as the Judge said, "a shadow of the chubby, healthy, happy child he had been". Still his mistreatment continued; as Michael put Ethan into a car seat, he punched him twice to the stomach, causing internal bleeding in two places, mostly around the duodenum. He was joined in the car by Kerry, and they went shopping, not troubled by Ethan's pain and suffering.

[20]Social services insisted on a visit to look at the children, either at the house or, failing that, at a family centre. Shannon opted to go to the family centre with two of her children, but she would not take Ethan, saying that he "isn't well". She did not give them any idea of the appalling injuries, neglect and cruelty already inflicted on Ethan, but sought to give them the impression that he was unwell in the ordinary way of a 2-year-old. The visit was fixed for 12 noon the next day.

[21]On the morning of that day, Friday 13 August 2021, Michael subjected Ethan to another violent and brutal assault, including a blow to his head which knocked him unconscious for 10 minutes. Kerry was not in the room at the time, but she was in the house, and so was Shannon. They quickly became aware that Michael had punched Ethan into unconsciousness. However, they were all determined that no outsider should be told. None of them sought any medical assistance for Ethan. Shannon called off her visit to social services and did not suggest that they should make the home visit they had originally proposed. She did not tell social services what had happened.

[22]Instead, Michael and Kerry put Ethan in the car and went shopping, while Shannon went out with one of her other children. On CCTV from their shopping trip, it is obvious that Ethan had advanced brain damage as a result of the injuries he had sustained. His walking had deteriorated sharply, and in the supermarket, he sat inert on the shopping trolley seat, listless and inattentive.

[23]Michael, Kerry and Shannon remained unconcerned. Having returned to the house, Michael cruelly mimicked Ethan's brain-damaged walk, to the amusement of his wife and daughter. Ethan's body weight was now well below 10 kg (when a normal average would have been about 13 kg), and he was as dehydrated as if he had been deprived of any fluid at all for three days (although it is more likely that he had been kept short of fluids over a longer period than that and this state of dehydration was the cumulative effect). None of these aspects of his condition caused his grandparents or his mother any concern. The truth was, as the Judge was subsequently to find, that they simply did not like Ethan and thought he deserved it.

[24]Ethan was killed on the evening of Saturday 14 August 2021 by his grandfather Michael. Kerry was sitting next to her husband at the time, and she supported and deliberately encouraged the fatal assault. Michael hit Ethan to the head and shook him violently. This caused retinal bleeding in his eyes, subdural bleeding in his brain and spine, and the swelling of his brain. It was force at the severe end of the spectrum, described by the pathologist as requiring the kind of violence which would horrify any independent bystander. Ethan's 3-year-old brother was in the room with them at the time.

[25]Ethan lost consciousness. At first, the offenders did nothing, merely waiting to see if Ethan would come round. He did not. After a few minutes, they called Shannon down from her bedroom upstairs, where she had been on the phone. Another 10 minutes passed while they made some efforts to bring Ethan round with water and fresh air. The one thing none of them wanted to do was to call in medical assistance or alert any other public service, even if Ethan was dying; their only concern was what would happen to them if anyone found out. After about a further 20 minutes, Kerry messaged another of her adult daughters, and then video called her, and that daughter took only seconds to say that they must of course call an ambulance. They were left with no choice but to do that and did so.

[26]When the ambulance came, and Ethan at last got expert medical care, the assistance came too late. Ethan never recovered consciousness, an emergency operation was unsuccessful, and there was nothing to be done but to turn off his life support two days later.

[27]The offenders and Ethan's mother all lied to the police and to medical staff about what had happened to Ethan and their responsibility for it. Sentencing 28. Victim impact

Sentencing

[28]Ethan's father, William Griffiths, provided a statement describing the pain and anguish he and his family felt at the devastating loss of Ethan, the impact on his own mood, now characterised by sadness and anxiety, and especially the agony of hearing the medical evidence at trial spelling out the pain and misery caused to Ethan in his last weeks alive. Mr Griffiths expressed sadness that Ethan would be remembered for what others had done to him, rather than for being the "smiley, outgoing, loving child that he was". Antecedents

[29]Michael had two convictions for minor and non-relevant offences dating from 1993 and 1996. Kerry and Shannon had no previous convictions. Reports

[30]There were no pre-sentence reports for Michael or Kerry.

[31]In Michael’s case there had been evidence at the trial from text messages that he suffered from low mood, and in the sentencing note prepared and put before the Judge on his behalf there was reference to his medical records which showed that he had suffered from anxiety and depression since 2009 and that he was on antidepressants at the time of the offending.

[32]In Kerry’s case there was a psychologist's report which had been served before the trial indicating that she had an IQ of 74, which is on the fourth centile for the population generally.

[33]In Shannon's case there was a pre-sentence report together with two psychologists' reports. She had an IQ "in the range 68-74". The reports recorded that she had the functional literacy and reading comprehension of a 9-year-old; that she suffered with depression and anxiety; and that she had suffered complex developmental trauma. She was also said to have a personality profile which indicated dependent and avoidant personality disorders, relating to her level of independence, her capacity confidently to make decisions, and her capacity to be assertive. The relevant sentencing guidelines

[34]The relevant statutory guidance for sentencing for murder is found in Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 It was common ground that the case fell within paragraph 5 such that the starting point for the minimum term was 15 years.

[35]In relation to the two other offences the maximum sentences had changed between the date of the offence and the date of sentencing, resulting in each case in revised Guidelines being issued by the Sentencing Council. The maximum sentence for the s. 5 offence of causing or allowing the death of a child increased from 14 years, at the time of the offence, to life imprisonment at the date of sentence. For the offence of cruelty to a child the maximum sentence was increased from 10 years, at the date of the offence, to 14 years at the date of sentence. The Judge was required to apply the sentencing guidelines in force at the date of sentencing but to take account of the lower maximum sentences in force at the time of the offending and could not impose a greater sentence than the maximum sentence in force at the time of the offending.

[36]For the offence of causing or allowing the death of a child the current Guideline has the following culpability category factors: "A - Very high culpability Very high culpability may be indicated by:• the extreme character of one or more culpability B factors and/or

• a combination of culpability B factors B - High culpability

• Prolonged and/or multiple incidents of serious cruelty, including serious neglect

• Gratuitous degradation of victim and/or sadistic behaviour

• Use of very significant force

• Deliberate disregard for the welfare of the victim

• Failure to take any steps to protect the victim from offences in which the above factors are present.” [There are two other ‘High culpability’ factors identified in the Guideline]

[37]For an offence falling within category 1A, the Guideline provides for a starting point of 14 years and a range of 12 to 18 years.

[38]Under the Guideline in force at the time of the offence when the maximum sentence was 14 years, there was no "Very high" culpability category. The top category was designated as "High culpability". The factors listed for High culpability were exactly the same factors as were subsequently to be found in category B High culpability of the more recent Guideline. The old Guideline provided for a starting point of 9 years and a range of 7 to 14 years for a category 1A offence.

[39]The current Guideline for child cruelty has the same category factors for category A ("Very high culpability") and category B ("High culpability") as the current Guideline for causing or allowing the death of a child. Category 1 harm includes serious physical harm and serious psychological, developmental and/or emotional harm. Category 1A has a starting point of 9 years and a range of 7 to 12 years. The sentencing remarks

[40]When passing sentence the Judge gave very full, clear and measured reasons for reaching the sentence for each of the defendants. They deserve quite extensive quotation.

[41]The Judge said he was sure that the intention of both Michael and Kerry was to kill Ethan. He said:

"Ethan was being starved and dehydrated to death. His closeness to death was obvious from his starved and emaciated body, not to mention the marks of violence which also covered his body now. None of the defendants can have been in any doubt about how fragile he was. And yet it was in this fragile state that he was punched to the head and knocked out by Michael Ives on the first occasion, on Friday 13 August 2021. … It was Michael Ives hitting him to the head and shaking him the next day as well which finally killed him… It is inconceivable to me that Michael Ives and Kerry Ives did not know that Michael's extremely violent shaking and punching of Ethan on Saturday 14 August would be the death of him. He was only 2 years old. He was visibly close to death by starvation and dehydration. He was exceptionally weak and vulnerable now. They knew that he could not take much more. Michael had already seen Ethan lose consciousness from his blows to the head the previous day, and Kerry knew about that, although she was in her bedroom at the time. They had been warned by this. But Michael and Kerry did not stop, or even pause, his ill-treatment. They still did not feed him. They still did not give him liquids. They still did not take him to a doctor or a nurse or to hospital or a surgery. They still kept social services at bay ... In the room together, on the final Saturday evening, Michael assaulted Ethan more violently than ever before, and Kerry was encouraging him. Both Shannon and, to a lesser extent, Kerry, were of exceptionally low intelligence. But even taking that into account, Kerry could not fail to understand what was happening. The boy was being killed. She knew that, and she intended it. I am sure of it. It was the natural and inevitable consequence of what Michael, with Kerry's support and encouragement, was doing to Ethan on Saturday 14 August 2021, given the state he was already in by that point."

[42]The Judge explained that his approach to sentencing would be that the sentences for Micheal and Kerry on the cruelty count would be concurrent with the minimum term for murder and that in order to reach a sentence which was just and proportionate to the offending as a whole, as required by the Totality Guideline, he would first consider the sentencing for the cruelty offence so that it could be taken into account in increasing the minimum term for the murder. Michael

[43]His approach in Michael's case was as follows. First, he considered the appropriate sentence for the cruelty offence to reflect all his cruelty to Ethan in the weeks leading up to 14 August but ignoring the final assault and killing at about 9 pm on that day. As to that, he applied the current sentencing Guideline, recognising that adjustment would be needed to reflect the increase in maximum sentence from 10 years to 14 years since the offence. He identified the following category B High culpability factors:(1) The multiple, escalating, painful assaults on Ethan over a prolonged period.

(2) The gratuitously degrading and humiliating treatment of Ethan, including repeatedly treating him like an object to be dangled by one arm, instead of a human being; making him put his hands on his head for no good reason on what appears to have been an almost daily basis; and recruiting Ethan's 3-year-old brother to join in the physical abuse, as shown by the CCTV of him being told to punch Ethan on the trampoline.

(3) The use of very significant force.

(4) The extreme neglect over the whole period, including starvation and dehydration.

(5) The deliberate disregard for Ethan's welfare, including but not limited to disregard for Ethan's desperate need to have more to eat and drink.

[44]The Judge said that the extreme character of these factors, and their combination, even allowing for overlap between the fourth and fifth of these factors, took the case into Guideline category A (Very high culpability).

[45]The harm to Ethan was in category 1 of the Guideline. His brain function was gradually damaged by violence to the point where he lost most of the skills which had positively been assessed on 7 June, and he was finding it increasingly difficult to walk or keep his balance. He became practically speechless. He suffered the pangs of starvation and dehydration, although this may have been mitigated towards the end by his brain damage. The major assaults, including the punches to his stomach in the back of the car, caused internal bleeding and would have caused lasting not merely immediate pain (on the expert evidence).

The Judge then identified the following further aggravating features:

[46]

(1) Ethan’s extreme youth and vulnerability, and Michael's position of trust as his grandfather and principal carer at this time;

(2) the failure to respond to the increasingly obvious impact on Ethan;

(3) the failure to allow social services to intervene or to obtain medical treatment.

The Judge identified two mitigating features:

[47]

(1) Michael’s poor mood and mental health, although the Judge said that those should be taken into account by way of personal mitigation rather than in any way reducing his culpability for the offending; and

(2) the absence of relevant or recent convictions.

[48]In determining the appropriate sentence for the cruelty

the Judge said:

"I will on these facts pass a sentence for child cruelty of 9 years, which is just above the top of the range [in] the Guideline introduced for the relevant maximum sentence, and close to the maximum of 10 years, although only at the starting point for the current range. This is a concurrent sentence and will be reflected to some extent in the minimum term, but, having regard to the principle of totality, that extent will be limited to 4 years, which is equivalent to an 8-year determinate sentence."

[49]He then turned to the minimum term for the murder. He said:

"Paying due regard to the statute, I adopt a starting point of 15 years, but the seriousness of the case and the balance of aggravating and mitigating features require a substantial uplift. The aggravating features of the murderous assault committed at about 9 pm on 14 August are: First: Ethan's extreme youth and vulnerability as a now brain damaged and disabled child, and Michael's position of trust as his grandfather and principal carer at this time. There is a degree of overlap between the family relationship, the breach of trust and the exceptional vulnerability of the child. However, the effect of the combination even bearing that in mind, is an extremely powerful aggravating factor taken as a whole. Second: The use of extreme force. Third: A significant delay of what I estimate in total as over 20 minutes before calling for medical help. Fourth: Lying about what had happened to Ethan when speaking to medics who were making urgent decisions about treatment. Although I recognise that it was already too late to save Ethan's life, Michael Ives did not know that. "

The Judge said:

"I will not add mental or physical suffering as an aggravating feature of the murder because Ethan was almost immediately knocked out. I have covered the prior suffering under the earlier offence of child cruelty. The mitigating features of the murder are the same as those I have considered in relation to child cruelty."

[50]Taking all that into account he determined that the appropriate minimum term would be one of 23 years, less time spent on remand. Kerry

[51]He adopted the same structured approach to Kerry's sentence. In relation to her role, he said:

"Kerry Ives played second fiddle to her husband in all the crime that they committed together, including the child cruelty. She supported and encouraged him in absolutely everything, and is therefore responsible for everything, but almost every act was done by him and not her, and even the omissions were more his responsibility than hers. He slept with Ethan in the living room, which she did not. He was up and about for more of the day than her. The initiative in the campaign of cruelty against Ethan was his. However, she did sometimes hit Ethan, although much less often and less hard than Michael did, and she was very active in obstructing the visits from social services which would have allowed them to step in and save Michael from his misery."

[52]As to the offence of child cruelty, he placed her offending in category 1B of the current Guideline, with has a starting point of 6 years and a range of 4 to 8 years. It would have had a starting point of 3 years and a range of 2 to 6 years under the old Guideline which reflected the maximum sentence of 10 years in existence at the time of the offence. The Judge identified the aggravating features in her case as:(1) her failure to respond to the increasingly obvious impact on Ethan;

(2) her active obstruction of social services to intervene or to obtain medical treatment;

(3) Ethan’s extreme youth and vulnerability, and Kerry's position of trust as his grandmother and co-carer with her husband and daughter at this time (although she had less caring responsibility than either of them).

[53]The Judge treated as mitigating features her low intelligence and physical and mental ill-health. He said that these to some extent reduced her culpability, but they mostly provided her with personal mitigation. He said that in reaching that view he had considered the report of Dr Matthews and went on:

"I do not accept that there is evidence of dependence on her husband which should be seen as a mitigating feature ... It was not her case that she knew what was happening was wrong but felt unable to do anything about it."

The Judge identified that in her case her previous good character was a mitigating feature.

[54]He concluded that sentencing for child cruelty alone he would pass a sentence of 6 years and went on to say that having regard to the principle of totality it would be reflected by an increase of 2 years in the minimum term for murder, which is equivalent to a 4-year determinate sentence.

[55]In relation to the minimum term for murder he took the starting point of 15 years. He identified the following aggravating features in her case of the murderous assault on 14 August as being:(1) Ethan's extreme youth and vulnerability as a now brain damaged and disabled child, and Kerry and Michael's joint position of trust as grandparents. He said, "Again, I recognise a degree of overlap between the family relationship, the breach of trust and the exceptional vulnerability of the child. But, as before the effect of the combination even bearing that and the difference in Michael and Kerry's roles in mind, is a powerful aggravating factor taken as a whole. "

(2) The use of extreme as well as lethal force which Kerry supported and encouraged in Michael in legitimising the assault in Michael's mind.

(3) The significant delay before calling for medical help in which Kerry played the leading part. She was the person who got on to her telephone, and she was the person who deliberately held back from calling any emergency services until her other adult daughter's reaction left her with no choice.

(4) Kerry’s lies and dissimulation about what had happened to Ethan when speaking to medics who were making urgent decisions about treatment.

[56]The Judge identified the mitigating features of the murder in her case as being the same which he had identified in relation to sentence for child cruelty.

[57]Taking all those matters into account he determined that the appropriate minimum term should be one of 17 years, less time spent on remand. Shannon

[58]In relation to Shannon we need to set out a good deal of what

the Judge said, which is quite lengthy:

"On Count 2, Shannon Ives is guilty of allowing the death of her son. She knew before Michael murdered Ethan on Saturday 14 August that he was at risk of being killed (and not just physically harmed) by Michael. She knew that Ethan was emaciated, bruised all over his body and had recent injuries on his face. She knew that he was painfully thin, malnourished, and dehydrated. She had seen (as she said in evidence) Michael open Ethan's mouth, put in his fingers, and take the food out of it before Ethan could swallow. She knew that Michael was violent and was being systematically cruel and physically abusive towards Ethan. She knew that Ethan could no longer walk or talk as he had walked and talked before. It was, I am sure, obvious to her when she was called back into the living room to see Ethan unconscious on the floor on the morning of Friday 13 August 2021 that Michael, the only adult in the room, had just knocked him out. She had never known Ethan to collapse for no reason. Although her intelligence is very low, I saw her give evidence and I also heard her extensive police interviews read into evidence. She understood the situation well enough to work out what was blindingly obvious. Michael had just knocked Ethan out. If this carried on, Ethan did not have long to live. At this point, the means of taking steps to protect Ethan were already in her hands. She was due to attend a visit to the family centre at 12 noon [with Ethan] so that social services could see Ethan and discuss his case, and she had been given the option of having it at the house instead of the family centre. She was also in telephone and text contact with the people involved. She had only to let matters take their course and Ethan would not have spent another night under that roof. Instead, knowing the risk, and knowing that Ethan was dying from lack of food and drink anyway, Shannon Ives cancelled the meeting, put off a visit, and left Ethan in [a] place to be killed, as he was, the next day. She did not cause his death but she was active in allowing it. On Count 3, Shannon Ives is also guilty of cruelty to her son in the period 8 June to 14 August 2021, excluding the point when he was murdered, which is covered by Count 2. I have already stated the facts. I will pass concurrent sentences on Counts 2 and 3 but ensure the sentence on Count 2 is just and proportionate to the offending on both counts as a whole in accordance with the Totality Guideline. I will apply the Guideline on Overarching Principles. I will also apply the Guideline on Sentencing [children and young people] and also the Guideline on Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments, because of the matters identified in the Pre-Sentence Report, in the report of Dr Allen … and in the report of Dr Shillabeer ... However, the expert reports are based on a less prolonged experience of Shannon Ives's ability to understand and respond to what is going on around her, and being said to her, than I have had. Shannon Ives gave evidence and was cross examined at length (in the presence of an intermediary, who did not have to intervene at any point). She also gave full answers to extensive police interviews. There is a record of her texts (although she deleted texts from her own phone), and evidence from nurses who saw her when she was in hospital for many hours, and overnight, while Ethan was in a coma and before his life support was turned off. I accept that she is of very low intelligence and has a diagnosis of depression and anxiety, for which she is receiving effective medication. I accept she had a damaging upbringing from Michael and Kerry Ives. However, she left home at about 16 and went back to live with them later on because it suited her, and not because she had to. Social and protected housing was offered to her and sometimes accepted by her. I am sure that her failure to take responsibility or to act was not due to a lack of understanding but was because at this point she had stopped having any positive feelings for Ethan and did not care what happened to him. I am sure she was aware of the risks to Ethan, and the extent of his suffering, and the causes of it. They were both obvious and very easy to understand, even for her. She has a tendency to lie and to blame everyone but herself when she is in fact seriously to blame. This was apparent from the evidence. It limits the reliability of the clinical assessments. They are based to a significant extent on her own versions of events. The Shillabeer report itself, at para 8.32, detects a degree of minimisation and inappropriate blaming by Shannon Ives. There is reference to her being interpersonally submissive, overly cooperative, and passive, and avoiding confrontation. However, this is not how she presented herself when giving evidence. There was also independent evidence of her non-cooperation with social services when it came to Ethan's welfare. But she had involved social services and police when she was at the receiving end of domestic abuse from her partner. She knew how to push back. I do however take account of the results of the more objective assessments and tests referred to in the reports and I accept she was particularly reluctant to confront her father directly when she was living with him. However, she never wanted to do that as far as his treatment of Ethan was concerned. She wanted Ethan to be broken too. On Count 2, the current Guideline for Causing or allowing the death of a child applies, because of the date of sentence. However, the maximum sentence applicable to Shannon is 14 years because of the date of her crimes, although it has since been increased to life imprisonment. I must have measured regard to the difference in maximum sentence when considering the current Guideline, which includes ranges over 14 years. I should, however, respect the current Guideline's introduction of a new category of Very high culpability, which was not in the previous Guideline. I have looked at the previous Guideline. The following High culpability Guideline factors are present in Shannon Ives's case: ◦ Prolonged serious neglect, having regard particularly to Ethan's starvation and dehydration. ◦ Prolonged and multiple incidents of serious cruelty, demonstrated to Shannon by the extensive bruising and injuries to his body and face. ◦ The gratuitous degradation of Ethan which Shannon saw when Michael Ives carried him by one arm, and when he (as well as she) forced Ethan to stand or walk with his hands on his head. ◦ Shannon's deliberate disregard for Ethan's welfare, focussing on her phone and online and occasionally in person contacts with new men, instead of looking after him. ◦ Shannon's failure to take any steps to protect Ethan from her father, particularly by accepting instead of rebuffing the visits and supervision of the social services. ◦ The use of very significant force when Ethan was killed by the assault on 14 August. Shannon was fully aware of this risk because she knew that Michael had knocked him out for 10 minutes the day before, on Friday 13 August. The combination of these factors, and in some cases their extreme character, moves Shannon's culpability on Count 2 into the Guideline Very high culpability category A. I have considered the extent to which her low intelligence and personality traits reduced her culpability. I do not think they reduce it below category A. However, I will consider them subsequently. Harm is in category 1 because the risk and result which Shannon knew and foresaw was a risk and result of death. The Guideline starting point is 14 years’ custody in a range of 12 to 18 years. However, that exceeds the maximum sentence of 14 years because it assumes an increase in the statutory maximum [sentence] which applied after 28 June 2022. I must therefore adjust both the range and the starting point to reflect the relevant maximum of 14 years. I will derive from the Guideline an adjusted starting point of 12 years’ custody. The only aggravating factor which I have not already taken into account is the presence of other children at the time. That is important. There were many children present, not just the brother I have mentioned. This was a household full of children. Mitigating factors are Shannon Ives's low intelligence and poor judgment. Also mitigating is the effect on her of a dysfunctional upbringing and domestic abuse and violence in her previous relationship. She was young (24 years old at the date of offence) and immature for her age. She has no previous convictions or cautions. Balancing the mitigating and other factors, I will impose a sentence of 12 years. Turning to Count 3, Shannon's cruelty to Ethan before he was killed, I apply the Guidelines as before. I place Shannon's offending in category 1 for Harm. As to culpability, although she moved Ethan to her parents' house on 24 June, she did not join them there until 19 July 2021. I should focus on her cruelty to Ethan and not theirs. Her principal cruelty was her neglect of Ethan. She deliberately disregarded his welfare. She did not see that he was properly fed. She failed to take any steps to protect him from her father, whose conduct towards Ethan she was fully aware of after she joined the household on 19 July. She did occasionally strike Ethan and she did sometimes get him to put his hands on his head when indoors, but much less often than her father did, because she was mostly leaving Ethan's care to him. I place Shannon's culpability in category B. I do not think it is reduced to C by her limited mental capacity, for the reasons I have already explained. This provides a starting point of 6 years in a range of 4 to 8 years under the current Guideline (which assumes a maximum sentence of 14 years) or 3 years in a range of 2 to 6 years under the previous Guideline (when the maximum sentence was the 10 years which applies to Shannon Ives's offending). Bearing in mind the balance of factors which I have already discussed, my final sentence for the child cruelty is 5 years. However, I recognise a substantial overlap between the factors relevant to the sentence on Count 2 and those relevant to Count 3. I therefore will not increase the sentence on Count 2 on account of the concurrent sentence on Count 3."

The Solicitor-General's Reference

[59]On behalf of the Solicitor General, Mr Jones KC contends that for Michael and Kerry the minimum terms of 23 years and 17 years respectively, less time spent on remand, were unduly lenient. He does not criticise the uplift of 4 years and 2 years respectively to reflect the sentences for the cruelty, but he says that that means that for the murder the Judge must have taken a minimum term of 19 years for Michael and 15 years for Kerry, which he submits was simply far too low for the many, many aggravating features of the case. He says that when sentencing for the murder the Judge could not divorce the aggravating features of the murder from all the aggravating features of what had gone before. He submitted that for Michael a sentence of something approaching 23 years would have been appropriate simply for the additional aggravating features involved in the murder itself and that taking into account all the aggravating features a sentence somewhere closer to 30 years would have been appropriate.

[60]In Kerry’s case he submitted that a sentence at the starting point for the murder of 15 years was simply wrong in principle and wholly insufficient to reflect all the aggravating features of the sentence.

[61]Submissions were made on behalf of Michael by Mr Elias KC. He emphasised that the trial judge was best placed to weigh up all the aggravating and mitigating features, having had the advantage of presiding over the trial and being in a position to observe Michael, Kerry and Shannon and all the circumstances in the household. He pointed out that the Judge had taken into account Michael’s good record, his poor mood and his mental health as mitigating features, which meant that the Judge must have taken a point above 23 years for the offending and all its aggravating features before reduction for that mitigation. The Judge therefore must have taken a sentence of what he said was 25 years, or at least 24 years, for the totality of the offending. That sentence was, in his submission, not lenient, or at least not unduly so.

[62]In Michael's case we are not persuaded that the sentence was unduly lenient. By approaching the sentences in the carefully structured way which he adopted, the Judge was able to seek to avoid double counting and to take appropriate account of the criminality involved in the cruelty prior to 14 August as reflected in the relevant Guideline for that conduct, and then to reflect the additional criminality involved in the murder itself in accordance with Schedule 21. That was an appropriate approach to take, although it was still necessary to stand back and consider whether the minimum term properly reflected all the circumstances of the offending and the offender. It was important not to divorce from the sentencing for the murder consideration of what had gone before. The sentencing could equally have been approached by simply treating all the aggravating features of the case as aggravating features of the murder itself, treating the murder as being the culmination of all that previous behaviour so as to increase the minimum term from 15 years accordingly.

[63]It is clear to us that the Judge did have the overall position clearly in mind. He said so, and that he was going to sentence for the totality of the offending, and indeed prior to the sentencing hearing he had notified the parties of a number of reported cases which he had considered whilst expressly recognising that every case had to be sentenced in accordance with its own facts and that other cases can only provide limited guidance. We too have considered such cases for the limited assistance which they provide in cases of murder of children involving prior cruelty.

[64]The Judge was particularly well placed to judge the nature and gravity of the offending and to assess Michael's culpability. This was undoubtedly a shocking case in which there was appalling cruelty towards Ethan and a shockingly callous murder of a young child in his care. It involved very serious criminality. Nevertheless, sentencing is an art not a science and cannot be approached mathematically. A minimum term of somewhere in excess of 23 years, before making the modest discount which was warranted for the limited mitigation, could not in our view be said outside the range reasonably available to the Judge or to involve a gross error.

[65]On behalf of Kerry, Mr Edwards also emphasised the advantage enjoyed by the trial judge in having conducted the trial and hearing all the evidence. He submitted that when sentencing, the Judge had correctly and carefully identified the limits of her involvement and referred to the aspects upon which the Judge had relied as limiting the criminality of her involvement. He submitted that it was correctly to be characterised as essentially omission rather than positive acts. He emphasised the personal mitigation in her case, including her ill health and limited intelligence. He said that it was a false point for Mr Jones to submit that she was being sentenced as if it was simply at the starting point of 15 years. He emphasised that in reaching the conclusion on Kerry’s part that there was an intention to kill, the Judge had in his sentencing remarks taken into account most if not all of the conduct which had gone before, and that intention to kill is not an aggravating feature, it is simply the absence of a mitigating factor. In all the circumstances he submitted that the sentence in her case was one which appropriately reflected the totality of her criminality and was not lenient, or at least not unduly so.

[66]In her case too, we are unpersuaded that the minimum term was unduly lenient. Again the Judge was very well placed to assess both her culpability and her personal mitigation. Her complicity in the intentional killing of her 2-year-old grandchild and her complicity in the appalling cruelty over a period of weeks before his death involved in her case very serious criminality. It too was shocking in someone who at least had some partial although not main responsibility for his care. But it falls to be assessed in the light of her role being very much secondary to that of her husband, and her fault lying mainly in the failure to protect Ethan rather than inflicting the humiliation and violence on him herself. Shannon's application for leave to appeal

[67]On behalf of Shannon, Mr Cole KC submits that the Judge made a number of errors.(1) He argues that the Judge failed to give sufficient weight to the contents of the psychological reports. He should have treated them as significantly reducing her culpability and should have sentenced her within category 1C of the current Guideline with a starting point of 5 years and a range of 3 to 8 years.

(2) He submitted that in any event the Judge's "adjusted" starting point of 12 years in the category he chose was too high having regard to the maximum sentence available at the time of the offence as one which was only 2 years higher than that (ie 14 years) and in the light of the fact that Shannon was guilty of allowing rather than causing the death.

(3) He further submitted that the Judge failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors, if he correctly arrived at a starting point of 12 years, emphasising the individual mitigating factors and their cumulative effect. The Judge took a starting point of 12 years and took 12 years as his finishing point for the sentence but identified as the only aggravating feature the presence of other children, which was, Mr Cole submitted, far outweighed by the other mitigating factors of low intelligence, the effect on her of her dysfunctional upbringing, domestic abuse and violence in her previous relationships, her youth and immaturity for her age, and the absence of previous convictions or cautions, and all the matters identified in the psychology reports.

(4) Even having regard to totality, he further submitted, taking into account the cruelty conviction, the sentence was one which was simply far too high. Mr Cole emphasised that Shannon had only moved in with her parents on 19 July, so that the period of her involvement was a period of less than 4 weeks; that there was evidence at trial, in particular from her brother Josh, that during her childhood her father controlled and was violent towards her and that she was fearful of him. She had, as a result, at one point fled the home and been taken into a local authority refuge for women who were the subject of violence, citing at the time domestic abuse at the hands of her father as the reasons for doing so.

[68]We have given careful consideration to these arguments, but we are unpersuaded that they justify interfering with the sentence. The Judge took into account the contents of the psychology reports but was entitled to rely on his own assessment of her culpability based on his lengthy opportunity to consider her and the evidence about her behaviour which occupied the course of a lengthy trial. His finding that her culpability was not significantly reduced was carefully explained and was one which he was entitled to reach. Taking an adjusted starting point of 12 years, when the maximum was 14 years, involved no arguable error. The Judge was bound to apply the current sentencing Guideline which has a starting point of 14 years and a range of 12 to 18 and deals with offences of very high culpability, albeit with measured reference to the fact that the maximum sentence at the time of the offence was 14 years. Taking the starting point of 12 years did so. It is perhaps pertinent to note that under the old s.5 Guideline in force at the time of offending the offence would have been categorised as in the very highest level of culpability then identified, namely ‘High culpability’, with the multiple factors which the Judge identified and which existed under that Guideline, which has a range going right up to 14 years (unlike many of the guidelines where the top of the range for the top category falls short of the maximum sentence). Whilst we agree with the submissions made by Mr Cole that the mitigating factors he identified did outweigh to some extent the single aggravating factor of young children being present, this was nevertheless very serious offending by a mother towards her 2-year-old son, witnessing and participating in the appalling cruelty and neglect involving starvation, dehydration and physical assaults causing brain damage to the point where by the time he was rendered unconscious by her father on 13 August it was "blindingly obvious" to her that if it continued he did not have long to live. She was, as the Judge found, entirely indifferent to this and allowed the behaviour to take place because she just did not care and equally shared the motive of trying to ‘break’ Ethan.

[69]The Judge was, in our view, if anything generous in not increasing the sentence he had arrived at for the s.5 offence for aspects of the cruelty which did not form part of the conduct in allowing the death, including the earlier stages of the cruelty and the fact that on occasion Shannon had herself hit Ethan.

[70]In her case, the Judge was very well placed to assess her overall criminality and sought to do so. Looking at the matter in the round, in our view a sentence of 12 years was not excessive, let alone manifestly excessive. Conclusion

[71]Therefore, in the result, although we have granted leave to refer and granted leave to appeal, we decline to interfere with any of the sentences imposed by the Judge. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk