The couple have been sentenced on a child cruelty charge after the baby suffered injuries to its legs and they failed to seek medical attention.

Advertisement

The parents of a three-month-old infant allegedly “did not care” about the youngster’s suffering which the court heard would have been “blindingly obvious” due to the nature of its injuries.

The mother and father whose baby had sustained four fractures to its legs across a six-week period were sentenced at Hull Crown Court after a jury found then guilty of child cruelty last month.

The court heard how Georgia Newbold and Kristjan Brawley “did not care” as their vulnerable child suffered distress and pain for weeks.

They also failed to get medical attention, leaving the baby to “suffer at home”, Hull Crown Court heard. They also kept the child “hidden from medical professionals” which was determined as “deliberate disregard” for its welfare. The jury heard how this caused the baby unnecessary suffering, reports Hull Live.

Newbold, 29, of Thoresby Street, off Princes Avenue, west Hull, and Brawley, 34, formerly of Princes Avenue, but later of no fixed address, both denied an offence of child cruelty but they were convicted by a jury on December 9 after a trial.

Advertisement

David Godfrey, prosecuting, said that the baby suffered four leg fractures over a six-week period, including to its left femur (thigh), right tibia (shinbone) and two separate fractures to the left mid and lower shinbone. “Each fracture required a significant application of force,” said Mr Godfrey.

“Each would have caused significant pain.”

Brawley took the baby to hospital on November 12, 2019 and he claimed that he got distracted and sat on the baby’s left leg but heard a crack.

X-rays revealed that the baby had older fractures – to its right shinbone and left thigh – that had been left to heal without any medical intervention. The baby would have endured pain from the untreated fractures.

“The pain and distress suffered would have been acutely obvious to both parents,” said Mr Godfrey. “Both parents failed in their duty and they caused unnecessary suffering.

“They neglected the child by failing to take it for treatment. They both left the baby to suffer at home. Its pain would have been blindingly obvious to both of them. They did not care.

“Tellingly, in the middle of the period in which these fractures were caused, the baby failed to attend for routine innoculations at a GP’s practice. The child was not taken by Mum or Dad.

“It missed the appointment. It was being hidden from medical professionals, who could have seen the signs of its distress and pain.”

Brawley claimed that the left shinbone injury was caused when he sat on the baby while it was lying on a bed and that the left thigh injury was caused when the baby was asleep on its chest and fell. Brawley claimed that he grabbed the baby’s left leg to pull it back up.

“Neither Mum nor Dad have given any account of how their three-month-old child could have fractured their right shin,” said Mr Godfrey. “There was silence on how an immobile child suffered that significant injury.

“Both parents caused unnecessary suffering by failing to get proper medical treatment, leaving the baby to suffer without expert medical intervention. There was deliberate disregard for the welfare of the victim.”

During police interview, Brawley claimed that he had been “a bit careless” and sat on the baby. Newbold claimed to have no knowledge of any previous injury and insisted that she would “never hurt” the baby.

She claimed that she had not noticed anything unusual with the baby and that it seemed “perfectly fine”. Newbold had no previous convictions. Brawley had previous convictions but of a different nature.

Charlotte Baines, mitigating, said that the cruelty was over a limited period of time and there was no evidence of any long-term physical effects on the baby. Newbold was not a “perpetrator” of the injuries.

“The court can’t be satisfied that the immunisation appointment was deliberately missed,” said Miss Baines. Newbold had expressed remorse and she accepted the jury’s verdict, although there was no full acceptance of her guilt.

“The offence is, of course, serious and I do not diminish that. It involves fractures of a baby.

“There were multiple incidents of cruelty but they fall short of serious neglect. She will work to ensure she does not appear before any court in any way, shape or form.”

Stephen Robinson, representing Brawley, said that the defendant was not convicted of any assaults. “There is no evidence of sadistic behaviour,” said Mr Robinson. “There was some disregard for the welfare of the victim.

“He should have noticed what happened. There is an expression of some remorse – not a complete acceptance. There is a dawning realisation that he could – and should – have behaved much better.

“He did, in the end, take the baby to hospital. The child ultimately received treatment and appears to have made a good recovery from this. There was a lot going on for this defendant at the time.”

Brawley had been working at the time despite a back injury and being on heavy medication and “some illicit self-medication”. He had not committed any offences since then. “There is a lot better side to this defendant,” said Mr Robinson. “He has always worked. He was working up until recently.”

Judge Alexander Menary said that Newbold and Brawley had made expressions of remorse in pre-sentence reports but this was “difficult to reconcile” with the claims that they made during the trial. It would have been apparent to any care-giver that “something was wrong” with the baby.

The neglect was “done deliberately” and it was extremely unlikely that the injuries could have been caused by daily handling of the baby. “Any care-giver could not have failed to realise that something was seriously wrong,” said Judge Menary.

Newbold and Brawley either deliberately failed to seek medical care or they did not care whether the baby needed medical attention. “Fortunately, there is no evidence of any long-term consequences,” said Judge Menary.

“The fractures would have been very painful at the time. This was a prolonged case of serious neglect. Only a sentence of imprisonment can be justified. These sentences cannot be suspended.”

Newbold was jailed for two-and-a-half years and Brawley was locked up for two years and 10 months. Both had been on bail until then.

Judge Menary allowed reporting of the case to include the fact that the victim was the child of Newbold and Brawley and that it was a baby at the time. He agreed with a Hull Live application that this be allowed and said that it was “a sensible way” of ensuring there could be “meaningful” reporting of the case without “totally artificial” restrictions regarding the baby.

Judge Menary agreed to continue with the approach of two previous judges over the reporting of similar cases in the past and he said that he saw “no reason to interfere with” the previous “established principle” at the court for dealing with such cases.