Judge's sentencing remarks to Dorset unborn baby killer

The sentence handed down by the Honourable Mrs Justice Cutts DBE at Bournemouth Crown Court on Thursday, January 6, had a minimum prison term of 12 years.

This came after the defendant, 35 and of Gillingham, Dorset, was found guilty of child destruction, inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and perverting the course of justice.

As reported, Davison attacked his girlfriend, who was 29 weeks pregnant with another man's child, in the Gillingham on May 29, 2020.

At the sentencing hearing, the judge gave a summary of the case, the assessment of whether he was a dangerous offender and the reasons for the life sentence and minimum term.

Mrs Justice Cutts's sentencing remarks were supplied to the Daily Echo following the hearing. They can be read in full below.

The sentencing hearing took place at Bournemouth Crown Court

Self represented for serious offences

The judge told the defendant: "I am to sentence you for serious offences – for inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent upon your then partner and for intentionally destroying the life of her unborn child, both during the same incident in May 2020 and for causing her actual bodily harm four months later in the September of that year; further for perverting the course of public justice when on several occasions in November you encouraged her to make a false statement to the police.

"You are unrepresented, having dismissed your legal representatives after your conviction. You have refused my suggestion that you should have alternative representation today. You have represented yourself at this hearing."

'She could not have been more wrong'

The judge moved on to discuss the background to the defendant and the victim's relationship.

She said: "You met the victim in about March of last year. She is 10 years younger than you and at that time was living with a man. She was vulnerable – otherwise homeless and with little support from family or friends.

"You told the jury, and I am prepared to accept, that you did not like the way the man treated her and invited her to stay with you. No doubt she thought her life would improve by doing so. She could not have been more wrong.

"Within a week you became partners. I reject your evidence at trial that this was solely at her instigation. In your evidence you did all you could to blacken the victim's name, claiming that she was the one who throughout your relationship, caused you to do what you did not wish to do.

"I find the reverse to be true and that you controlled her throughout. She remained vulnerable, with nowhere to live and no-one else to turn to whilst she lived with you. Her dependency on you grew when, within a short time of moving in with you, she found that she was pregnant with the other man's child.

"There is no doubt that she was a young woman with problems of her own. She was drinking alcohol and smoking for a while in her pregnancy. She did not make all her ante natal appointments or engage with the social worker allocated to her and, by May 2020, when she was 29 weeks pregnant, had not made preparations for a new born baby as others may have done.

"There was however clear evidence that she was trying to engage with her midwife and there were no problems with the baby’s development."

• Read more: Life prison sentence for Dorset man who killed girlfriend's unborn baby

Broken heart and freaked out

The judge continued: "Having told her initially that she could continue to live with you after the baby was born, your true feelings soon came to the surface.

"In a recorded conversation with a friend of yours on March 29, 2020, you said that, in your words it broke your heart and freaked your brain out that the victim was carrying another man’s child.

"You had told her that you didn’t want to bring up the man's kid and were reluctant enough to have been feeding it (clearly alluding to feeding the child by feeding his mother) for the last six months. You said you wanted nothing to do with it.

"At the end of April you could be heard in a recording being angry with the victim, saying and I quote 'Get your ******* (man's name) baby out of my house. Don’t rub it like it’s a ******* big deal. Get it ******* out of here. I don’t give a shit about your baby'.

"If you had concerns about her pregnancy and the circumstances of it, you had only to say that she could no longer stay with you and maybe even help her to make other arrangements. However you felt about it, she was vulnerable and needed care.

"Instead I find that your resentment simmered. On May 29 it exploded into violence."

Previous offences of violence

Mrs Justice Cutts said: "Beyond the victim's obvious vulnerability, you had every reason to behave appropriately. At that time, indeed since you had met her, you were on licence, following a sentence of twelve months imprisonment imposed upon you at this court, for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

"The victim on that occasion was your previous partner who you kicked in stomach when she was pregnant (again with another man’s child), threatened with a knife and dragged from the bed to the kitchen. After she had returned to her own home, you lay in wait for her outside her front door. As she left you punched her in the eye causing fractures to her eye socket in the lower rim and orbital floor.

"Given the severity of the injury you were fortunate not to have been charged with causing grievous bodily harm.

"There are clear similarities in the way you treated both that young woman and then the victim (in this case)."

'Holding her as you would a dog'

The judge said: "On the evening of May 29 you went to a supermarket with the victim to buy food. You did not return home straight away but went to consume some cans of alcohol by the canal.

"What exactly took place there is unclear as the victim has consistently refused to co-operate with the police. She gave varying different reasons for her injuries either through fear or to protect you when speaking to them and did not give evidence at the trial. What is plain from CCTV footage is that something happened to cause the victim to leave her bicycle behind and run away from you. She went to the block of flats where the other man was then living.

"You followed her there, not I find to make sure she was alright as you maintained in your trial, but to punish her. In all probability it was in the stairwell of the flats that you seriously assaulted her.

"She was later found with a swelling to her forehead, bruising on her upper arms and a blowout fracture of the floor of the orbit on her left eye socket and fractures of the nasal bone.

"The facial injuries were all most likely caused by a single blow to the eye, injuries Mr Davison that were similar to those you had caused to your previous girlfriend not long before.

"You knew that your punch was capable of fracturing an eye socket. It did not stop you doing it again.

"An eye witness saw the way you were behaving towards the victim that night. She is young and living in difficult circumstances. I pay testament to her courage in coming to this court to give evidence.

"Having left the vicinity of the man’s flat, you walked past the trailer in which that witness was living.

"She saw you shouting at the victim, kicking her, dragging her up the road, holding her as you would a dog by the scruff of its neck. You were not releasing her in spite of her crying and saying 'please no'.

"It was only as a van passed that she was able to get away from you, go into the back garden of a nearby house and ask for the resident’s assistance.

"The victim was taken to hospital and the injuries to her noted and treated. But it was not only her that you hurt. There is another victim of your violent and callous offending.

"Bruising was found to her pregnant abdomen in the shape of a fist or an orange. It was this, in the opinion of Mr Pearson, the consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist who saw the victim that night, which caused a placental abruption. A decent amount of force would have been needed for this to have happened. Her baby died as a result.

"When his mother was about seven months pregnant you destroyed the life of that child. By the jury’s verdict you intended so to do. The victim was induced and gave birth to her dead child."

Further offending months later

Mrs Justice Cutts said: "You were arrested, interviewed and bailed. You had conditions not to contact the victim. Within a very short time and in breach of that condition she was once again living with you. I note from the pre-sentence report that prior to September she was found naked in a cupboard in your premises, a breach for which you were fined.

"In September you assaulted her again. On the evening of September 16, with injuries to her face, she ran from your house to a nearby community centre, asking some ladies doing yoga for their help. Contrary to their advice she would not go to the hospital or to the police and so the severity of the injuries you caused is not known. There was at least dried blood and swelling to her face. This incident is reflected in Count 3 of the indictment.

"After that you were remanded in custody to await your trial. In November, you spoke with the victim on several occasions on the prison telephone. Those conversations were recorded. In them you were placing pressure on her to give a false statement to the police so that you could get bail."

'You were no knight on a white charger'

The judge said she rejected assertions made by the defendant when he gave evidence in the trial.

She said: "Throughout your trial you maintained that you only ever helped the victim, that you were concerned for her and, difficult as you kept saying she was, wanted only to ensure her well-being. I reject that evidence entirely.

"You were no knight on a white charger. You are a controlling man who is quick to anger and to violence, as the victim discovered to her cost.

"The victim has refused to make an impact statement. I note with concern your belief expressed in the pre sentence report that you are still in a relationship, although you tell me today that you no longer wish to be so. It is nonetheless obvious that you, upon whom as her partner she was entitled to rely for love and support, caused her injury on more than one occasion, physical pain and forced her to give birth to a dead child."

History of criminality

The judge went on: "But it is not only the victim who has suffered domestic violence and abuse at your hands. I have mentioned already that you were on licence at the time of your assault of her in May. You have further convictions for violence, mostly of a less serious kind in terms of injury but nonetheless domestic in nature.

"In December 2005 you were convicted of common assault when you spat in your then partner’s face and poured a can of drink over her. In May 2009 a different ex girlfriend obtained a non molestation injunction against you. You shouted abuse at her brother in a pub and, having punched him to the face, pushed him through a window resulting in a conviction for battery.

"In January 2012 when you were living with your father, you were waking him in the night, being verbally abusive about his problems with drink and drugs and on one occasion poured his dinner over him. Your father was driven to move from his own home when you continued to harass him by text and by graffiti.

"All of this behaviour resulted in convictions of less serious offending but it shows very clearly, in my view, your ongoing temper and attitude to those with whom you live, culminating in the serious offences for which I have to sentence you today.

"Your previous convictions are a serious aggravating factor, as is the fact you were on licence when you committed the offences in counts 1 and 2 and on bail and in breach of the conditions at the time of the assault in count 3."

Assessment on dangerousness

Discussing a key part of hte sentencing process, the judge said: "The offences of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and child destruction are both specified offences and listed in schedule 19 of the Sentencing Act 2020. In coming to the appropriate sentence in your case I must therefore first consider whether you are dangerous, that is whether you pose a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission of further specified offences.

"Following your conviction for these matters I adjourned sentence for the preparation of a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric report to assist me in this assessment. I asked for a psychiatric report following your evidence that you suffer from diagnosed bi-polar but are not on medication. You refused to engage with the psychiatrist. At a hearing in mid December I explained to you why I had asked for such a report and asked whether, if another appointment was arranged, you would co-operate. You indicated that you would not.

"Information about your mental health has since come to light. A psychiatric report was commissioned for the purpose of assessing whether you were fit to plead for an earlier offence in 2019 which was available to the Probation Service. It details how you have previously been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. For two months in 2013 you were detained under s.2 of the Mental Health Act. You were prescribed medication but failed to engage with follow up care in the community.

"By 2019, when in custody, you were assessed to be psychotic but did not meet the threshold for transfer to hospital. Although unclear when, by this time you had stopped taking your medication.

"Following your arrest for child destruction a referral to the Personality Disorder pathway was completed. The assessment at that time was that your diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder did not drive your offending behaviour. Rather it is said that past childhood trauma is likely to be linked to it.

"Enquiries with HMP Winchester where you are currently held show there are no current concerns about your mental health. This is plainly not a case where a hospital order would be appropriate.

"I am grateful to the author of the pre-sentence report for her careful and detailed analysis.

"I agree with her view that your behaviour shown throughout these and previous offences is evident of controlling and coercive behaviour which is violent, manipulative and grooming in nature.

"This, in her view, suggests that you have clear deficits in impulsivity, temper control, aggressive and controlling behaviour, problem solving skills and victim empathy. She considers you to have capacity to inflict serious harm upon intimate partners when acting with feelings of rejection, loss of control and clear attempts to coerce.

"A further concern is that you only engage with external support when you feel it will benefit you and solely on a superficial level to meet the expectations of professionals, rather than in having any invested interest in addressing your lifestyle.

"She assesses you as posing a high risk of serious harm with identifiable indicators that a potential event could happen at any time and the impact would be serious. Those at high risk are potential partners but especially the victim, with whom you maintain you have a continuing relationship.

"The fact you were on licence at the time of the offences in May 2020 demonstrates not only a lack of compliance and disregard for the order but also that the external risk management plan was insufficient to prevent your reoffending in the community.

"The author of the report is of the view that in order to reduce these risks you would need to be subject to and comply with extensive external risk management plans with multi agency working and develop internal risk management strategies. She has serious concerns about your ability to do so.

"For all of these reasons and from what I saw in the course of the trial, I have no hesitation in finding you dangerous. Your history of offending in a domestic context is of significant concern. The severity of it has escalated, with you fracturing the eye socket of your last two partners.

"In May 2020 you set out not just to cause your pregnant girlfriend really serious bodily injury but to kill her unborn child.

"You were on licence at the time. You were on bail when you assaulted the victim again in September. You have never accepted responsibility for your actions but sought time and again to blame others for the injuries you caused to them."

Life imprisonment

Mrs Justice Cutts said: "By s.285(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020 I must next consider whether the seriousness of the offences in counts 1 and 2 or of one or more offence associated with them is such as to justify the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life."

As the judge explained her reasons for imposing alife sentence, the defendant, who was appearing via video link from HMP Winchester, left the suite he was in and he did not return. The judge continued with her sentencing remarks.

She went on: "I have given this matter careful thought and have come to the conclusion that the offence of child destruction in count 1 is so serious. I accept that the fractures to the victim’s face are likely to have been caused by one blow. I accept that may also be true of the blow which caused the death of her baby.

"I nonetheless come to the conclusion that a life sentence is justified for the following reasons: It is clear that the victim was running to get away from you on the evening of the May 29. She was heavily pregnant and vulnerable and it can properly be inferred that she was frightened of you.

"You could have gone home. You did not. You tracked her down, intending I find to seriously assault her. In that sense this was a planned rather than spontaneous attack.

"Having on earlier occasions expressed your anger at the victim’s pregnancy you delivered a blow of such force to her abdomen that you caused the placenta to rupture when she was seven months pregnant. You intended to destroy the life of her baby who, at seven months gestation, was able to survive independently of her.

"Your previous convictions show a propensity to domestic assault. You have fractured the eye socket of each of your last two partners.

"You pose in my view a very high level of danger to those with whom you have a relationship. There is no reliable estimate of how long that will be the case.

"Having so found, I have no discretion and a life sentence on count 1 must follow. I make it clear that I have considered the alternatives of an extended or determinate sentence. Given the seriousness of the offence and the future risk I have concluded that the seriousness of count 1 is such as to justify life imprisonment."

• As it happened: Judge hands man who killed unborn baby a life prison sentence

Limited mitigation

"I have found little by way of mitigation," said the judge.

"It is clear that you had a difficult childhood and that you suffer with your mental health. However, you have consistently refused to accept any help offered to you over many years.

"You tell me that you are a peaceful, caring person who wants to help others. Your convictions show otherwise.

"You have expressed in this hearing that you are sorry for the loss of the victim's baby, yet you have never accepted responsibility for it."

Setting a minimum term

Mrs Justice Cutts said: "As to the minimum term, had I been sentencing you to a determinate sentence I would have increased the sentence on count 1, the child destruction, to reflect the entirety of your offending and passed concurrent sentences for the other offences.

"Taking account of all the aggravating factors and such mitigating factors that there are and of the principle of totality, I would have sentenced you to 18 years imprisonment. Because you would have served two thirds of that sentence in custody I fix the minimum term which you will serve on count 1 at two thirds of 18 years, that is 12 years. I reduce that minimum term by 475 days which is the number of days which you have spent on remand in custody. This means that the minimum term which you will serve before the Parole Board may consider your release is one of 12 years less 475 days."

Three other offences

The judge said: "I place the offence of causing grievous bodily harm in count 2 within category 3A of the relevant Sentencing Guideline. It is category A culpability as the victim was clearly vulnerable. This has a starting point of five years imprisonment with a range of four to seven years. It is aggravated by your previous convictions, the fact that it was committed on licence and in a domestic context.

"The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm falls in my view within category 2A of the relevant Sentencing Guideline. It is again within culpability A for the same reasons. It has a starting point of 18 months with a range of 36 weeks to 30 months imprisonment. Your previous convictions and the fact that it happened whilst you were on bail and in breach of that bail and in a domestic context are aggravating factors.

"The offence of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice in count 4 is not contained within any Sentencing Guideline. You were persistent but I take into account that your efforts failed and the victim did not provide the statement you sought.

"The sentences on all counts are as follows, all sentences to run concurrently with each other:

a. Count 1 – life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years less 475 days.

b. Count 2 – 6 years imprisonment

c. Count 3 – 2 years imprisonment

d. Count 4 – 2 years imprisonment

"It is most important that you and everyone concerned with this case should understand what this means.

"The minimum term is not a fixed term after which you will automatically be released but is the term that must be served before the Parole Board can undertake their first review of the case.

"They will review the risk that you then present and will consider whether you can properly be released from custody subject to licence at that stage and, if so, on what terms.

"If and when you are released you will be subject to licence. If for any reason your licence is revoked you will be recalled to prison to continue to serve your life sentence in custody. It follows that unless and until the Parole Board consider that your release is appropriate then you will remain in custody.

"If the surcharge applies it can be drawn up in the appropriate amount."

If you are interested in court and crime news, stay up to date with all our latest updates in our dedicated Facebook group. To find out more and to join click here.