Dad who caused 'life-changing' injuries to baby daughter avoids jail

A 33-year-old man who caused "life-changing" injuries to his then three-week old daughter in a "baby-shaking" incident has been spared jail.

The defendant, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his now eight-year old daughter, was handed a sentence of two years and 10 months which was suspended for four years.

He appeared at Belfast Crown Court on Tuesday, where he was sentenced for causing grievous bodily harm to his daughter on 30 December 2017.

The court heard that while the defendant accepted he was the sole carer of his 22-day-old daughter when she sustained the injuries, he had not provided an explanation for how the harm was caused.

The baby was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital for Sick Children, where tests indicated bleeding on the brain.

It was the conclusion of a medical team that the baby had suffered an acute traumatic head injury.

This, it was concluded, was most likely caused by the repetitive backward and forward movement of an unsupported infant's head pivoting on the neck.

The defendant was subsequently arrested and questioned by police.

When asked if he shook the baby at any point, the defendant said "no".

During two further interviews, the defendant again denied shaking his daughter and denied getting frustrated at having to change her nappy three times.

Crown barrister Rosemary Walsh KC said it was the prosecution's case that the injuries sustained were "consistent with an episode of shaking of the child".

She spoke of the long-term impact on the child who is non-verbal, has significant mobility issues, requires assistance with washing, eating and drinking and continues suffering seizures.

The barrister also noted was confirmation from the child's mother about the contact her now ex-partner has with their daughter and the responsibility he upholds emotionally and financially as a father.

Addressing the delays in the case, Walsh said it was complex and complicated by issues of obtaining the right medical evidence.

Defence barrister Kevin Magill read a document the defendant signed with his solicitor which said he accepted "the medical opinion that the injuries sustained by (the child) were sustained whilst she was in his sole care".

"He is unable to recall any event that would have caused such injuries but accepts that some such event must have occurred," the barrister continued.

"The defendant's plea is based on an acceptance that notwithstanding, he has no recall of a specific causative event. He must have caused the injuries."

Magill also said that in the intervening years, his client had changed significantly, was now in full-time employment, had engaged fully with social services and had family responsibilities including regular contact with his daughter with whom he has a "very strong bond".

Judge Mark Reel said that after reading all the medical evidence, he was "satisfied that the defendant inflicted the injuries on the victim by vigorously shaking her".

Citing the injuries as "life-changing", the judge said they could have been caused during a "momentary period of anger or frustration".

While he expressed concerns that the defendant has not explained what happened, Judge Reel added that he had "no doubt that he keenly feels regret every day of his life and is confronted by the consequences of his actions every time he sees or thinks about his daughter".

As he imposed the suspended sentence, Judge Reel said he had taken into account issues such as the delay in the case, the defendant's previous good character and the impact a period in custody would have on his daughter.